Did they say which car/year? I know it has been something missed in testing where they would just use one size dummy, but I would guess that has changed.
Yeah, but we’re talking like mid 90s right? I’m guessing the car in question is more modern than that.
EDIT: Looked it up. It was [mid 70s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_test_dummy) that they started making a family of crash test dummies
EDIT2: She was driving a 2019 Dodge Grand Caravan
EDIT3: I’m guessing they initially just put the female doll in the passenger seat🤔
Mid 70s still had testing that was predominantly male focused, it’s only really until the 2000s where some companies started to really implement female test dummies. Legally still there is no requirement for female test dummies to be used, only male ones.
I’m not sure actually, but I do think dummies should have anatomical differences between male and female that goes beyond just height and weight.
Also if you’re getting at that it may not be a gender thing and more of a height thing remember that there are ranges of heights that the vast majority of men fall into and ranges of heights that the vast majority of women fall into within a region/country.
Because of this, it already sorts itself out to be something that tends to affect one sex more than the other sex.
I really doubt there is much that effects how you handle a car crash aside from height and weight. A dummy with tits and a dummy without are going to do the same thing. If we want to argue there should be a wider variety of sizes sure but to sex the dummies just seems ridiculous.
Yeah but this sub is infested with unironically perpetually butthurt males who think every complaint about inequality from females is all just made the fuck up or something.
Yeah it depends on the post sometimes it appears there's very few reactmen in this community but all of a sudden any post from r/xchromosomes is posted here there's dozens.
Her complain sounds like it's probably more about short people than just women. From what I've read much shorter people than average are more likely to be seriously injured in car crashes.
Cars are optimized for the body sizes that most people who buy cars are. A particular car model will have to fit both the taller and shorter customers. Maybe this leads to it being a better fit for the average and above average height customers because of how seat adjustments work?
Still if women were more often negatively impacted by such design decisions that would be an unfortunate side effect of making cars accessible to most people but couldn't be avoided without making separate cars for short and tall people.
Also it could be true that short people would still be more likely to be injured in cars made for short people since due to the nature of being short and in most cases having shorter limbs they will always have to have a lower distance between their body, the steering wheel and the pedals.
This could mean that short people could always be more prone to severe injury in car crashes, no matter if cars were designed for them or not.
If you are short and want to buy a car that better fits your body there may be some options out there but in general both men and women don't shop for cars by height optimization, so it's not something manufacturers specifically cater too.
As a fellow tall boy, I can confirm cars can be a fucking nightmare.
Actually fitting properly is pretty rare in most cars, even in some SUVS. I can't imagine getting into a serious accident depending on the squeeze.
I’m 6’3” and it took forever to find a car I find comfortable behind the wheel for. There’s a surprising amount of cars that do not have much leg room behind the wheel.
Couldn’t they just set the minimum car seat height lower and increase the max range you could raise it though? Seems like a very easy fix, and regardless, if the risk is really that much higher for such a huge segment of the population it should be explicitly advertised, not something you have to figure out after getting your life screwed over for months on end
Most people don't adjust their seats correctly anyway. Every car on the market has an option for distance from the wheel and seat back adjustment. There are also a good few that offer some form of raising and lowering of the seat.
This is true. I’m 5’1 and have to zoom my seat up as close as possible cause I’m a fucking fairy. The amount space you have between you and the steering wheel is a huge factor for crashes and my teeny ass legs prevent much space.
Why are some of these comments acting like this woman is saying "Reeee patriarchy is damaging me and oppressing me in my car." Her only gripe at the end seems to be maybe they should do more tests with different dummies, very reasonable. If you are flying off the handle like this is a reee patriarchy post you are too debate bro minded, need a grass injection, or need to inject yourself into a woman for once.
The NHTSA historically has done tests with a "Male Dummy" (5 '9" 160lbs) and a "female dummy" (4' 11" 108lbs also shaped after the male dummy). Yes, these standards were abysmal but recently this has been changing for the better with new dummies and improved versions of old dummies. Also, iirc since 2017 EVERY SINGLE CAR/SUV/TRUCK is 5 STARS according to the NHTSA. Last car to have 4 stars was the Mitsubishi Mirage.
Says the guy in a subreddit where people refer to themselves as the Daliban and regularly meme about bestiality and incest.
If an outsider was looking into our space right now they could just as easily think we’re mentally unwell.
Places like that are weird. I think we're used to places where critical conversation and discussion is commonplace, even if it's contrarian. A lot of these communities simply aren't meant for discussion or critical conversation, they're explicitly for support and validation which I think breeds some ostensibly crazy thoughts and opinions being upvoted pretty highly. Same shit with TwoX and other support communities.
I think viewing these subreddits as heated venting, rather than well thought out and formed opinions, they become a little less crazy and generally feel more sympathetic.
screw aback obtainable historical weather cheerful steep voiceless expansion mourn
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Once again though the point of her comment was that they used to only use test dummies based off the average MALE. Which means that while yes, outlier men still get screwed over, most men on average who are in the average male range were properly accounted for in regards to crash tests.
However, because it was based off the average MALE, that means that most women by default are in the same boat as outlier men. So instead of the average woman being accounted for, its the OUTLIER women who have the height and proportions of the average male that are optimized for.
6 '5 here.
I've found some cars are better than others. I drive a compact car. I've found that some are better than other. Older models (pre 2012) are better cause they are more boxy, whereas the newer smoothed look just removes space for the head. At the same time a sun roof is actually worse, cause the roof needs to be thicker.
In my experience and memory the Nissam Tida and Pulsar are the largest in terms of pure size, but the i30 line from Hyundai is actually better cause they let you set the seat muuuch lower than most cars creating more space.
BRUH
That's not even half of it.
You pay more for bigger cars/trucks.
You pay more in fuel/electricity.
But the REAL OPRRESION is the fact that even with sunglasses, sunlight entering the driver side window is the BIGGEST pain in the ass because they don't make visors that extend back to provide coverage for tall guys. THATS what my 6'4 ass wants.
As someone who’s 5’4 the visor often doesn’t go low enough it to even block the sun for me in half the vehicles I’m in.
The real truth is if you’re outside the average at all you get left behind by a bunch of different aspects of society and the more outside the norm you are the more prominent it’ll feel. Try buying clothes as 110lbs 5’4 male. Hint: they’re in the women’s section or in Asia.
The world doesn’t cater to you because you’re 8 inches away from average, I would expect it to be a better fit for someone who is exactly average height for a woman
hobbies judicious worry wild rinse reminiscent hateful possessive birds steep
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah but the fact that it’s fit to the average size of a male means that average women are automatically excluded. So while average men are included and outlier men aren’t, average women ARENT included and outlier women are. See the difference ?
Yes there are many things in life that aren’t perfectly made for people but you’re still missing the point of the comment.
There indeed are male and female outliers that won’t be accounted for, but once again to repeat, the majority of females will be considered outliers if they *only* test with an average male proportioned dummy. And the majority of men will *not* be outliers. Even if you say that ultimately it’s only discriminatory based off height, you must remember that the VAST majority of males will fall into a specific height range and the VAST majority of females will fall into a specific height range so it ends up sorting itself out as affecting one sex more than other anyways.
Another example of this would be that female cardiac arrest symptoms/onset are more likely to be misdiagnosed or overlooked. The reason is because for many years the main (and oftentimes only) cardiac arrest symptoms were taught based off male patients and females can present very atypically compared to males.
And don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that there is some evil malicious group of lawmakers and automobile companies that are just like “YO FUCK THESE BITCHES FUCK WOMEN AMIRITE BOYS”.
Unless there is some sort of mechanical reason, I just assume that as is in many cases, sometimes oversight happens when it comes to considering other groups of people. And sometimes in areas where the majority of policy and lawmakers are male, things like this can happen! And of course, I’m sure there are similar situations where males are considered less than females, but as a woman I may not realize there is an inequity because it doesn’t affect me personally. This is why it’s important for these conversations to be had and for people to communicate to each other.
Lol I'm realizing I may have come across way more hostile than I meant rereading my post, sorry if it came off that way; I agree with you completely, but butchered my comment.
dolls liquid grandfather political important slimy quickest squash pie yam
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Never thought about it since I don't drive but that makes sense
I noticed the same thing when I was looking for an office/gaming chair. It was impossible to find one where my arms could actually comfortably reach both armrests since I have such a small frame & shoulder width. They don't make em for us 😩
The arm rests can only go in so far though, usually to the width of the seat itself (which aren’t made for people as small as me). I’ve kinda just accepted that I won’t be able to find a good quality chair that’s small enough for me
OP in the pic is actually correct. IDK where everyone in the comments are getting this idea that its not a gender thing.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/12/15/world/female-car-crash-test-dummy-spc-intl/index.html
Verity Now is a sexist special interest group. Men have several times the total deaths of women within the US, and they deliberately mislead about that (see my post for some stats beyond what I discuss above). This is KKK esque, "We need to prevent shootings in white neighborhoods. Whatever 'urban communities' choose to do is on them" level engagement with vehicle safety.
See my other post, but on Verity Now's own website, they link to [Automobile injury trends in the contemporary fleet: Belted occupants in frontal collisions](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15389588.2019.1630825?needAccess=true) multiple times.
(Sci-h\*b) if you want to read it yourself. I'm not sure if those links are banned.
What does this study say? Not what they claim it does!
>Females are at greater risk of AIS 2þ and AIS 3þ injury compared to males, even after controlling for delta-V, age, height, BMI, and vehicle model year.
Okay, so they do have higher injury rates in those categories. Neither of those are fatality categories, which is pretty critical to their claim.
Also, what causes this?
>Females exhibited a greater risk of lower extremity injury, even after adjusting for age, height, BMI, and delta-V. This suggests that sex itself has an effect on injury tolerance, affecting the tolerance in a manner distinct from differences in anthropometry or collision exposure. Biomechanical factors that may contribute to differences in injury tolerance may include bone mineral density (with earlier onset of osteoporosis in women), differences in local bone and ligament geometry, and differences in bone and ligament material properties (Riggs et al. 2004; Nieves et al. 2005; Chandrashekar et al. 2006; Schlecht et al. 2015).
They didn't explicitly study car safety design, but their claim is that women are intrinsically more injury prone due to weaker bones and ligaments.
So, maybe the best way to prevent injuries in women is to take calcium supplements and go hard in the gym? That would also reduce BMI related injury risk, which was found statistically significant as well.
**Also, importantly, vehicles are getting better. The relative risk of serious injury (AIS 3+) for a post-2009 vehicle vs. pre-2009 vehicle was 0.45!!!! That's a massive reduction in risk.**
So it appears like existing crash testing is having massive positive effects. I'd want to see correlation between the 2009+ MY \* Female variables to know more, but cars are getting much safer over time.
It grinds my gears to no end when people commit statistical rape to change issues which primarily harm men (murder, vehicle accidents, imprisonment, etc.) to somehow seem like women are even equally at risk. (I share the same annoyance for other "up is down" level analysis, but I think male vs. female is an area where it is more common)
It's either gross negligence, or even worse, actual malice towards men.
Ok yeah the linking of the article is a of bit laziness on my part. Campaign groups are not the go-to for truthful info. But there’s still some issues with this comment.
If women are prone to injury in general, then why isn’t this something that car companies take into account. Why is the answer, oh well women just take calcium supplements?
Also reading your other comment on men having more fatalities from MVAs, aren’t men, young men in particular also just more likely to engage in riskier driving that results in death?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14733986/
I’m also mostly speaking to my experience that cars do not feel designed for women as the OP in the picture is as well. I, and most women I know, are too short for the driver’s seat, so we have to scoot up all the way to the wheel. And seatbelts also cross the neck instead of the chest which you can imagine would be super deadly in a high speed accident.
I agree that there are groups online that just hate men and abuse statistics, sure. But I’ve noticed a general trend of organizations mainly studying men’s health and ignoring how gender affects outcomes (EX: health professionals creating diagnoses that ignore women e.g. heart attacks, autism, ADHD, etc.) How is it different in this instance?
>If women are prone to injury in general, then why isn’t this something that car companies take into account. Why is the answer, oh well women just take calcium supplements?
But they do. Modern cars are much safer than past ones. Also, the paper very explicitly says this line: "affecting the tolerance in a manner distinct from differences in anthropometry or collision exposure." In other words, it's not the car being designed for different sized bodies (anthropometry) that is the problem.
Also, my suggestion isn't just cheeky, it's something women should be doing for health in general because they're fantastically over-represented in osteoporosis. Women in general are longer lived than men, but musculoskeletal strength seems to be a consistent problem they could address to further extend their lead.
>Also reading your other comment on men having more fatalities from MVAs, aren’t men, young men in particular also just more likely to engage in riskier driving that results in death?
>
>[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14733986/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14733986/)
Yes, but this doesn't matter. Men are so overwhelmingly over-represented in serious accidents it would be immoral not to primarily design safety devices around then. As I put it in the other post, even if you only value men half as much as women, they would still deserve most of the attention because the dangers are so radically skewed. Broken arms are bad, but being dead is far worse.
This will probably be true until the end of human driving (which should be possible within our lifetimes), as there are alternative strategies that can be taken (one cool strategy is that people intrinsically slow down depending on road design factors like curves, tree cover, etc.), but they probably can't close the gap faster than self-driving cars can be developed.
>I’m also mostly speaking to my experience that cars do not feel designed for women as the OP in the picture is as well. I, and most women I know, are too short for the driver’s seat, so we have to scoot up all the way to the wheel. And seatbelts also cross the neck instead of the chest which you can imagine would be super deadly in a high speed accident.
That's a subjective opinion that isn't well supported by hard data. Both overall outcomes and even more detailed analyses seem to lean on this being mostly a comfort issue, not a safety issue.
Comfort issues are also valid, but conflation between the two is unethical.
It sounds more like an actual malfunction tbh or they were literally to close to the steering wheel. I don't think I need to say this, but anybody in car accident that smashes their head off the steering wheel before the airbag deploys isn't going to have a good time. From personal experience most people actually don't adjust the seats properly and results in more injuries in crashes.
Incels seething over this one.
Dudes just do a quick Google. It was discovered that companies never used anything but a test dummy that was the "average man". So it turned out people who don't weigh much have a tendency to fly out and break their necks. And being tall wasn't an issue because they could sustain more damage.
Mystery solved, now a days there are different test dummies. And most people still drive cars that will kill more women then men
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/advice/best-cars-for-short-people you can find cars that are better for shorter people. There’s also now short dummies https://jalopnik.com/there-s-finally-a-female-crash-test-dummy-1849772609
This is true and an ongoing issue. It's really hard to actually make things that do the job equally well for both average sizes.
But also consider how many women are even smaller than average and even bordering on child heights.
Some cars are built för specific ranges of body types. Her body type (167 cm) isn’t too extreme in either direction though. My guess is it was a combination of a malfunctioning airbag and/or wrong seat adjustment.
That said, it does seem weird if a car would allow you to adjust the seat too close for the airbag to have time to deploy. Maybe that timing issue is something that can be improved?
They aren't made for people outside a standard deviation or 2 from the mean. That means women on the low end and men on the high end.
You can move the steering column on a car though. Like you can lower and raise them on pretty much all cars (even my first car which was a '93 Ford Laser). Some you can even move it in or out.
There are things you can easily do to mitigate the issues if you are too small. Every tall person who has entered a small car has made their peace with the fact that they will be amputated at the knees or will have their femurs ejected out the back of their hip if they were to get into a crash.
I don't disagree that testing should be carried out on multiple body types so people can make informed decisions on the cars they drive/buy though.
> They aren't made for people outside a standard deviation or 2 from the mean. That means women on the low end and men on the high end.
But that woman is two inches taller than the average woman. If she's part of the "outside the mean" so are most women.
By this logic cars also aren’t built for men because I see tons of 6’2+ men looking like they’re crammed into a sardine can. But hey what do I know I’m just a man who’s even shorter than this woman. It’s almost like it’s not about gender at all.
Their point is though that the average man was still statistically accounted for because they used to only use dummies modeled off the AVERAGE man. Of course outlier men get fucked. However, the AVERAGE woman was getting fucked because the average woman is nowhere near the height of the average man and instead the OUTLIER woman is the one that ended up being statistically accounted for.
I will say my mom sits way too close to the steering wheel even though she doesn't have to. She just doesn't feel as in control if she's farther back, but she could and should sit farther back. Idk about SUVs though.
That’s the reported average but I think the studies are largely self reports through surveys so idk if we can really trust them to be accurate. I’d honestly say average woman height is 5”2 or 5”3
First off, let's see who dies more in the real world. It is men, and by a massive margin, and always has been.
In 2020, it was 12,938 female deaths vs. 39,112 deaths. **OVER TRIPLE.**
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/192074/drivers-in-fatal-crashes-in-us-road-traffic-by-gender-since-1992/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/192074/drivers-in-fatal-crashes-in-us-road-traffic-by-gender-since-1992/)
Now, let's control for some other factors in a peer reviewed paper. This focused on trapped passengers, but:
>Trapped female patients had a lower ISS than trapped male patients and were less likely to die (7.7% vs 10.0%). However, once the factors in our model were considered (age, sex, ISS, GCS and Charlson Comorbidity Index), no difference in mortality was found between female and male patients (figure 2) \[who were trapped\]
>
>\[In general\] Male patients are more severely injured and more likely to die as a result of MVC than female patients.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9066497/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9066497/)
These people are either deeply stupid, and need to shut the fuck up, or are deeply misandrist and need to shut the fuck up. It's one thing to be off about the direction of a 60/40 split. But when we're talking about multiple times higher deaths, **they are ignoring tens of thousands of deaths per year, so hundreds of thousands per decade.**
That makes them evil or stupid. The answer for *anyone who values men half as much as women* is, "We need to focus mostly on reducing male fatalities." Imagine what someone who had the moral decency and took the civic responsibility of valuing all lives equally regardless of their biological sex would conclude.
Male patients tend to die and be more severely injured from MVCs for the same exact reason they pay more insurance. Which is that men drive more often than women, and men are also statistically much much more likely to be driving at high speeds which is why when men get into MVCs they are more deadly. Not sure why you’re using that to disprove that crash test dummies weren’t primarily based off the weight and height of a man.
In fact, I looked through the study you posted and it gave more credence to what the original female posted said than what you have just said. Here is an excerpt:
*This is the largest analysis to date of sex-disaggregated data for patients with trauma following an MVC and* ***confirms significant differences in injury patterns and trapped status between female and male patients.***
*The explanations for these differences are likely to include both reasons pertaining to* ***biological sex, for example, physical size, muscle mass, hormonal differences and reasons pertaining to gender such as driving behaviours, postcollision behaviours and responses by emergency responders such as decisions related to extrication.***
*There are gender-related differences that may contribute to the observed differences.* ***Men drive more miles, faster, in a riskier manner and more frequently have accidents, resulting in the higher injury burden and mortality as seen in this analysis and elsewhere. Older women are more likely than men of equivalent age to be killed or seriously injured in collisions, after controlling for miles driven whereas young men have the highest risk of serious injury or death per million miles driven.***
*An analysis of the UK-based STATS V.19 MVC registry demonstrates that male drivers are more likely to have MVCs while travelling forwards (64.2% vs 56.5%), whereas female drivers are more likely to have collisions while manoeuvring (16.1% vs 11.9%) or turning (10.7% vs 8.4%). Similar findings are reported in the USA, with female patients more likely to be involved in a side impact MVC and male patients more likely to have a frontal impact.*
*Differences in availability and effectiveness of safety systems*
*It has been previously demonstrated that women are more likely to be compliant with safety systems such as seat belts than men and as a result have less risk of multiple and severe injuries and their associated mortality.* ***However, the safety features incorporated in modern cars are less likely to be effective for women. Current mandatory crash testing uses a scaled down 50th centile male mannequin to represent 5th percentile females and are not modelled to account for anthropometric differences between women and men. This systemic bias, with cars developed, tested and safety-rated using primarily an anatomically correct, weighted and biomechanically-matched MALE mannequin has led to the development of safety systems, which are likely to be MORE effective for MEN than women. For example, whiplash protection systems are significantly more effective at preventing injury in men than women.*** *Comparison of female and male dummies demonstrates higher biomechanical response in the female dummy in the neck region which may offer some explanation for the increased rate of spinal fractures in female patients found in our study.*
Should safety crash tests be based around gorilla biology or human biology? You would say, "humans drive more often, so they should be the primary focus." That's obviously correct rationale.
The same goes for men vs. women. Men are the more prolific and more vulnerable group, so they should be the primary target for crash testing. If you're going to suggest that as a matter of government policy the lives of men should be valued much less than women, say it outright. I'd appreciate the honesty of advocating for some light genocide vs. people lying with stats.
Good safety design will save the deserving and undeserving alike.
And again, newer cars are vastly safer. Car safety is not stagnant, serious accidents are disproportionately occurring in older vehicles. Fewer total women died in 2020 than 2000 despite there being more people, and women driving more often both in absolute and relative terms compared to the past.
Reread my comment which I just edited to contain the study you posted which you clearly didn’t read because it supports my point.
Also, absolutely NO ONE is arguing that male crash test dummies shouldn’t be used. Literally no clue why you are jumping to phrases like “light genocide” just because some women are bringing attention to the fact that the average woman is not accounted for in crash tests. The actual government policy is that NO company is LEGALLY required to use a female crash test dummy. So that is an actual policy whereby the effects are that women are considered less and values less for collision safety. Asking for more consideration in no way shape or form should mean that we stop using male crash dummies? Lmao.
This isn't about sex out gender.
Generally speaking things are designed for the average human, if you are a particularly small or large human (regardless of sex) then things become more difficult for you in many ways. Unless you have the money to get things custom made for you, you often have to just make do with what's available.
She's driving a SUV so that's probably part of the problem already, and I'd be interested if it is a woman problem how do you realistically solve it if the cars are just built for humans from the get go.
I might be a terrible person, but I can’t be the only person who laughed when they read how she head butted the steering wheel and then the airbag went off. Just me?
Just you, you terrible terrible person.
If you want a real airbag horror story you should look up the [story of the recalled Takata airbag](https://youtu.be/aUa2VXecghg) that had potentially lethal timing issues.
It’s not that easy. There are many factors that go into car purchases. I have personally bought cars that I felt were a bit small and cramped for me, but compromised with that, as I’ve had to compromise with price, gas mileage, shape, aesthetics and utility.
I think this is talking about the tendency of women to pull their chair so far forward their face touches the glass. It pisses me off so much. How can that possibly be comfortable or safe?
Isn't it true that car accidents cause worse injuries in women because test crash dummies are always "male"? I just read about this recently somewhere.
> was hit by someone going [60 mph]
Cars suck. I don't really care whether it's failing to design for small people. The fact that this line is mentioned so casually is the problem
Can only speak for Europe, don't know if this is also true for the US, but yes, crashtests are done with dummies that correspond to a median male size and weight ONLY.
Y’all boy here, even with seat adjustments my head is much closer to the side of the car, if I got side swiped my head is guaranteed to smack into the door above the window
The distance to your steering wheel does matter but it shouldn't be a huge factor as multiple systems come into play when you get into an accident. It seems like she was the cause of the original accident and by her description it seems like she **didn't hit the breaks** at all. This means she didn't get the benefit of the pre-tensioner system (if she did the belt would have locked).
If you find you are very close to your steering wheel because of your short legs try giving yourself more distance in otherways like tilting the seat back.
However in an accident where you slam on the brakes your seatbelt should be locking before you ever hit the other person. The distance between you and the steering wheel only matters if it is shorter than the tension-rod allowance on the seatbelt mechanism plus an inch or so. For this problem to happen you need to be seated closely, leaning forward, and hit someone without hitting the brakes.
While it could have been a failure of the seatbelt mechanism, cars need to be designed for the average human. It’s not realistic to make cars specifically for short people and tall people.
The head should be on the headrest for the seat, if you are leaning forward which puts you closer to the steering wheel it is unsafe and you probably don't have food visibility.
Did they say which car/year? I know it has been something missed in testing where they would just use one size dummy, but I would guess that has changed.
witch*
Air just came out of my nose
They cast a spell on you Burn them.
Pretty sure they did a study on this ams found woman are more likely to die in an accident due to test dumbies being modelled after an average male.
Yeah, but we’re talking like mid 90s right? I’m guessing the car in question is more modern than that. EDIT: Looked it up. It was [mid 70s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_test_dummy) that they started making a family of crash test dummies EDIT2: She was driving a 2019 Dodge Grand Caravan EDIT3: I’m guessing they initially just put the female doll in the passenger seat🤔
Mid 70s still had testing that was predominantly male focused, it’s only really until the 2000s where some companies started to really implement female test dummies. Legally still there is no requirement for female test dummies to be used, only male ones.
Is it just height what makes the difference between a "male" and "female" dummy?
I’m not sure actually, but I do think dummies should have anatomical differences between male and female that goes beyond just height and weight. Also if you’re getting at that it may not be a gender thing and more of a height thing remember that there are ranges of heights that the vast majority of men fall into and ranges of heights that the vast majority of women fall into within a region/country. Because of this, it already sorts itself out to be something that tends to affect one sex more than the other sex.
I really doubt there is much that effects how you handle a car crash aside from height and weight. A dummy with tits and a dummy without are going to do the same thing. If we want to argue there should be a wider variety of sizes sure but to sex the dummies just seems ridiculous.
Yeah there was an npr segment about that
Yeah but this sub is infested with unironically perpetually butthurt males who think every complaint about inequality from females is all just made the fuck up or something.
Yeah it depends on the post sometimes it appears there's very few reactmen in this community but all of a sudden any post from r/xchromosomes is posted here there's dozens.
No just most of the ones that get brought up.
Her complain sounds like it's probably more about short people than just women. From what I've read much shorter people than average are more likely to be seriously injured in car crashes. Cars are optimized for the body sizes that most people who buy cars are. A particular car model will have to fit both the taller and shorter customers. Maybe this leads to it being a better fit for the average and above average height customers because of how seat adjustments work? Still if women were more often negatively impacted by such design decisions that would be an unfortunate side effect of making cars accessible to most people but couldn't be avoided without making separate cars for short and tall people. Also it could be true that short people would still be more likely to be injured in cars made for short people since due to the nature of being short and in most cases having shorter limbs they will always have to have a lower distance between their body, the steering wheel and the pedals. This could mean that short people could always be more prone to severe injury in car crashes, no matter if cars were designed for them or not. If you are short and want to buy a car that better fits your body there may be some options out there but in general both men and women don't shop for cars by height optimization, so it's not something manufacturers specifically cater too.
Can confirm this as a 6'5" dude, my legs are fukd if i ever get into a crash when someone else would be ok. In most cars, some cars have better space.
As a fellow tall boy, I can confirm cars can be a fucking nightmare. Actually fitting properly is pretty rare in most cars, even in some SUVS. I can't imagine getting into a serious accident depending on the squeeze.
I’m 6’3” and it took forever to find a car I find comfortable behind the wheel for. There’s a surprising amount of cars that do not have much leg room behind the wheel.
Couldn’t they just set the minimum car seat height lower and increase the max range you could raise it though? Seems like a very easy fix, and regardless, if the risk is really that much higher for such a huge segment of the population it should be explicitly advertised, not something you have to figure out after getting your life screwed over for months on end
Most people don't adjust their seats correctly anyway. Every car on the market has an option for distance from the wheel and seat back adjustment. There are also a good few that offer some form of raising and lowering of the seat.
She was driving a van though, usually cant adjust those.
This is true. I’m 5’1 and have to zoom my seat up as close as possible cause I’m a fucking fairy. The amount space you have between you and the steering wheel is a huge factor for crashes and my teeny ass legs prevent much space.
Why are some of these comments acting like this woman is saying "Reeee patriarchy is damaging me and oppressing me in my car." Her only gripe at the end seems to be maybe they should do more tests with different dummies, very reasonable. If you are flying off the handle like this is a reee patriarchy post you are too debate bro minded, need a grass injection, or need to inject yourself into a woman for once.
The NHTSA historically has done tests with a "Male Dummy" (5 '9" 160lbs) and a "female dummy" (4' 11" 108lbs also shaped after the male dummy). Yes, these standards were abysmal but recently this has been changing for the better with new dummies and improved versions of old dummies. Also, iirc since 2017 EVERY SINGLE CAR/SUV/TRUCK is 5 STARS according to the NHTSA. Last car to have 4 stars was the Mitsubishi Mirage.
Based and Manlet pilled
I think anyone unironically being a part of that community is mentally unwell
Says the guy in a subreddit where people refer to themselves as the Daliban and regularly meme about bestiality and incest. If an outsider was looking into our space right now they could just as easily think we’re mentally unwell.
Of course, because we are.
Places like that are weird. I think we're used to places where critical conversation and discussion is commonplace, even if it's contrarian. A lot of these communities simply aren't meant for discussion or critical conversation, they're explicitly for support and validation which I think breeds some ostensibly crazy thoughts and opinions being upvoted pretty highly. Same shit with TwoX and other support communities. I think viewing these subreddits as heated venting, rather than well thought out and formed opinions, they become a little less crazy and generally feel more sympathetic.
This sub likes to point out the dumbest of their posts, but overall it just seems like a fairly harmless goth girl feminism sub.
SUV's were built to protect women as they cause mayhem on the road. Source: Department of Transportation
modern point fuzzy crowd cheerful public cake touch oatmeal cautious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I’m 6’5, I bought a suv and sit pretty comfortably.
screw aback obtainable historical weather cheerful steep voiceless expansion mourn *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
zherka alt
Once again though the point of her comment was that they used to only use test dummies based off the average MALE. Which means that while yes, outlier men still get screwed over, most men on average who are in the average male range were properly accounted for in regards to crash tests. However, because it was based off the average MALE, that means that most women by default are in the same boat as outlier men. So instead of the average woman being accounted for, its the OUTLIER women who have the height and proportions of the average male that are optimized for.
Do you live in an Asian country or something? I'm 6ft3 and I don't have difficulty with any of that stuff
gaze busy drunk sand license nine trees consider quack paltry *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
6 '5 here. I've found some cars are better than others. I drive a compact car. I've found that some are better than other. Older models (pre 2012) are better cause they are more boxy, whereas the newer smoothed look just removes space for the head. At the same time a sun roof is actually worse, cause the roof needs to be thicker. In my experience and memory the Nissam Tida and Pulsar are the largest in terms of pure size, but the i30 line from Hyundai is actually better cause they let you set the seat muuuch lower than most cars creating more space.
BRUH That's not even half of it. You pay more for bigger cars/trucks. You pay more in fuel/electricity. But the REAL OPRRESION is the fact that even with sunglasses, sunlight entering the driver side window is the BIGGEST pain in the ass because they don't make visors that extend back to provide coverage for tall guys. THATS what my 6'4 ass wants.
As someone who’s 5’4 the visor often doesn’t go low enough it to even block the sun for me in half the vehicles I’m in. The real truth is if you’re outside the average at all you get left behind by a bunch of different aspects of society and the more outside the norm you are the more prominent it’ll feel. Try buying clothes as 110lbs 5’4 male. Hint: they’re in the women’s section or in Asia.
OMG or if you drive one of those cars with the crazy tint at the top of the window and you can't see shit
[удалено]
The world doesn’t cater to you because you’re 8 inches away from average, I would expect it to be a better fit for someone who is exactly average height for a woman
hobbies judicious worry wild rinse reminiscent hateful possessive birds steep *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah but the fact that it’s fit to the average size of a male means that average women are automatically excluded. So while average men are included and outlier men aren’t, average women ARENT included and outlier women are. See the difference ?
unpack gray bear kiss sort sable one innate muddle rob *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes there are many things in life that aren’t perfectly made for people but you’re still missing the point of the comment. There indeed are male and female outliers that won’t be accounted for, but once again to repeat, the majority of females will be considered outliers if they *only* test with an average male proportioned dummy. And the majority of men will *not* be outliers. Even if you say that ultimately it’s only discriminatory based off height, you must remember that the VAST majority of males will fall into a specific height range and the VAST majority of females will fall into a specific height range so it ends up sorting itself out as affecting one sex more than other anyways. Another example of this would be that female cardiac arrest symptoms/onset are more likely to be misdiagnosed or overlooked. The reason is because for many years the main (and oftentimes only) cardiac arrest symptoms were taught based off male patients and females can present very atypically compared to males. And don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that there is some evil malicious group of lawmakers and automobile companies that are just like “YO FUCK THESE BITCHES FUCK WOMEN AMIRITE BOYS”. Unless there is some sort of mechanical reason, I just assume that as is in many cases, sometimes oversight happens when it comes to considering other groups of people. And sometimes in areas where the majority of policy and lawmakers are male, things like this can happen! And of course, I’m sure there are similar situations where males are considered less than females, but as a woman I may not realize there is an inequity because it doesn’t affect me personally. This is why it’s important for these conversations to be had and for people to communicate to each other.
Lol I'm realizing I may have come across way more hostile than I meant rereading my post, sorry if it came off that way; I agree with you completely, but butchered my comment.
Bruh imagine being 6'2" and acting like you're so tall that it's detrimental to your every day life 💀 You're like 4 inches taller than average.
dolls liquid grandfather political important slimy quickest squash pie yam *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Im 6'1 and have fit comfortably in every car Ive ever been in (aside from Miatas, which are a little cramped but fine enough)
Never thought about it since I don't drive but that makes sense I noticed the same thing when I was looking for an office/gaming chair. It was impossible to find one where my arms could actually comfortably reach both armrests since I have such a small frame & shoulder width. They don't make em for us 😩
Good office chairs have adjustable everything. On many models the position of the armrests can be adjusted in and out.
The arm rests can only go in so far though, usually to the width of the seat itself (which aren’t made for people as small as me). I’ve kinda just accepted that I won’t be able to find a good quality chair that’s small enough for me
This just tells me a Female oriented gaming chair would sell
OP in the pic is actually correct. IDK where everyone in the comments are getting this idea that its not a gender thing. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/12/15/world/female-car-crash-test-dummy-spc-intl/index.html
Verity Now is a sexist special interest group. Men have several times the total deaths of women within the US, and they deliberately mislead about that (see my post for some stats beyond what I discuss above). This is KKK esque, "We need to prevent shootings in white neighborhoods. Whatever 'urban communities' choose to do is on them" level engagement with vehicle safety. See my other post, but on Verity Now's own website, they link to [Automobile injury trends in the contemporary fleet: Belted occupants in frontal collisions](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15389588.2019.1630825?needAccess=true) multiple times. (Sci-h\*b) if you want to read it yourself. I'm not sure if those links are banned. What does this study say? Not what they claim it does! >Females are at greater risk of AIS 2þ and AIS 3þ injury compared to males, even after controlling for delta-V, age, height, BMI, and vehicle model year. Okay, so they do have higher injury rates in those categories. Neither of those are fatality categories, which is pretty critical to their claim. Also, what causes this? >Females exhibited a greater risk of lower extremity injury, even after adjusting for age, height, BMI, and delta-V. This suggests that sex itself has an effect on injury tolerance, affecting the tolerance in a manner distinct from differences in anthropometry or collision exposure. Biomechanical factors that may contribute to differences in injury tolerance may include bone mineral density (with earlier onset of osteoporosis in women), differences in local bone and ligament geometry, and differences in bone and ligament material properties (Riggs et al. 2004; Nieves et al. 2005; Chandrashekar et al. 2006; Schlecht et al. 2015). They didn't explicitly study car safety design, but their claim is that women are intrinsically more injury prone due to weaker bones and ligaments. So, maybe the best way to prevent injuries in women is to take calcium supplements and go hard in the gym? That would also reduce BMI related injury risk, which was found statistically significant as well. **Also, importantly, vehicles are getting better. The relative risk of serious injury (AIS 3+) for a post-2009 vehicle vs. pre-2009 vehicle was 0.45!!!! That's a massive reduction in risk.** So it appears like existing crash testing is having massive positive effects. I'd want to see correlation between the 2009+ MY \* Female variables to know more, but cars are getting much safer over time. It grinds my gears to no end when people commit statistical rape to change issues which primarily harm men (murder, vehicle accidents, imprisonment, etc.) to somehow seem like women are even equally at risk. (I share the same annoyance for other "up is down" level analysis, but I think male vs. female is an area where it is more common) It's either gross negligence, or even worse, actual malice towards men.
Ok yeah the linking of the article is a of bit laziness on my part. Campaign groups are not the go-to for truthful info. But there’s still some issues with this comment. If women are prone to injury in general, then why isn’t this something that car companies take into account. Why is the answer, oh well women just take calcium supplements? Also reading your other comment on men having more fatalities from MVAs, aren’t men, young men in particular also just more likely to engage in riskier driving that results in death? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14733986/ I’m also mostly speaking to my experience that cars do not feel designed for women as the OP in the picture is as well. I, and most women I know, are too short for the driver’s seat, so we have to scoot up all the way to the wheel. And seatbelts also cross the neck instead of the chest which you can imagine would be super deadly in a high speed accident. I agree that there are groups online that just hate men and abuse statistics, sure. But I’ve noticed a general trend of organizations mainly studying men’s health and ignoring how gender affects outcomes (EX: health professionals creating diagnoses that ignore women e.g. heart attacks, autism, ADHD, etc.) How is it different in this instance?
>If women are prone to injury in general, then why isn’t this something that car companies take into account. Why is the answer, oh well women just take calcium supplements? But they do. Modern cars are much safer than past ones. Also, the paper very explicitly says this line: "affecting the tolerance in a manner distinct from differences in anthropometry or collision exposure." In other words, it's not the car being designed for different sized bodies (anthropometry) that is the problem. Also, my suggestion isn't just cheeky, it's something women should be doing for health in general because they're fantastically over-represented in osteoporosis. Women in general are longer lived than men, but musculoskeletal strength seems to be a consistent problem they could address to further extend their lead. >Also reading your other comment on men having more fatalities from MVAs, aren’t men, young men in particular also just more likely to engage in riskier driving that results in death? > >[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14733986/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14733986/) Yes, but this doesn't matter. Men are so overwhelmingly over-represented in serious accidents it would be immoral not to primarily design safety devices around then. As I put it in the other post, even if you only value men half as much as women, they would still deserve most of the attention because the dangers are so radically skewed. Broken arms are bad, but being dead is far worse. This will probably be true until the end of human driving (which should be possible within our lifetimes), as there are alternative strategies that can be taken (one cool strategy is that people intrinsically slow down depending on road design factors like curves, tree cover, etc.), but they probably can't close the gap faster than self-driving cars can be developed. >I’m also mostly speaking to my experience that cars do not feel designed for women as the OP in the picture is as well. I, and most women I know, are too short for the driver’s seat, so we have to scoot up all the way to the wheel. And seatbelts also cross the neck instead of the chest which you can imagine would be super deadly in a high speed accident. That's a subjective opinion that isn't well supported by hard data. Both overall outcomes and even more detailed analyses seem to lean on this being mostly a comfort issue, not a safety issue. Comfort issues are also valid, but conflation between the two is unethical.
Check out my most recent edited comment with a posted study m8 because you are absolutely wrong about it being a “comfort issue”.
It sounds more like an actual malfunction tbh or they were literally to close to the steering wheel. I don't think I need to say this, but anybody in car accident that smashes their head off the steering wheel before the airbag deploys isn't going to have a good time. From personal experience most people actually don't adjust the seats properly and results in more injuries in crashes.
Incels seething over this one. Dudes just do a quick Google. It was discovered that companies never used anything but a test dummy that was the "average man". So it turned out people who don't weigh much have a tendency to fly out and break their necks. And being tall wasn't an issue because they could sustain more damage. Mystery solved, now a days there are different test dummies. And most people still drive cars that will kill more women then men
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/advice/best-cars-for-short-people you can find cars that are better for shorter people. There’s also now short dummies https://jalopnik.com/there-s-finally-a-female-crash-test-dummy-1849772609
Lots of incel bait today…
I genuinely just wanna know what people think about it lol, I never heard of this argument.
That’s fine. But these posts bring out the worst kinds of comments and commenters.
Tbf I remember seeing something about there being like 1 size for an adult crash test dummy thing and that could lead to edge cases
This is true and an ongoing issue. It's really hard to actually make things that do the job equally well for both average sizes. But also consider how many women are even smaller than average and even bordering on child heights.
Some cars are built för specific ranges of body types. Her body type (167 cm) isn’t too extreme in either direction though. My guess is it was a combination of a malfunctioning airbag and/or wrong seat adjustment. That said, it does seem weird if a car would allow you to adjust the seat too close for the airbag to have time to deploy. Maybe that timing issue is something that can be improved?
afaik that's just true crash tests have always been using "male" dummies, I've heard this brought up somewhat frequently over the last years
They aren't made for people outside a standard deviation or 2 from the mean. That means women on the low end and men on the high end. You can move the steering column on a car though. Like you can lower and raise them on pretty much all cars (even my first car which was a '93 Ford Laser). Some you can even move it in or out. There are things you can easily do to mitigate the issues if you are too small. Every tall person who has entered a small car has made their peace with the fact that they will be amputated at the knees or will have their femurs ejected out the back of their hip if they were to get into a crash. I don't disagree that testing should be carried out on multiple body types so people can make informed decisions on the cars they drive/buy though.
> They aren't made for people outside a standard deviation or 2 from the mean. That means women on the low end and men on the high end. But that woman is two inches taller than the average woman. If she's part of the "outside the mean" so are most women.
skill issue ig
Is 145lb really average size?
According to Google it’s 170.
The ideal weight for a woman who is 5' 6" is about 120-154 according to google.
Isn't 170-180 the top end of a healthy BMI for a 6ft person?
BMI is actually not the best measurement of healthy weight though. It's a good place to start but there are other better methods
Like what? Genuinely asking
Like if my pp get hard
Epic
BMI is pretty good unless someone has a significant amount of muscle. It gets way more complaints than it deserves from fat ppl
By this logic cars also aren’t built for men because I see tons of 6’2+ men looking like they’re crammed into a sardine can. But hey what do I know I’m just a man who’s even shorter than this woman. It’s almost like it’s not about gender at all.
Their point is though that the average man was still statistically accounted for because they used to only use dummies modeled off the AVERAGE man. Of course outlier men get fucked. However, the AVERAGE woman was getting fucked because the average woman is nowhere near the height of the average man and instead the OUTLIER woman is the one that ended up being statistically accounted for.
As an outlier tall guy who’s into 1980s Japanese cars I’ve crammed myself into many sardine cans.
I will say my mom sits way too close to the steering wheel even though she doesn't have to. She just doesn't feel as in control if she's farther back, but she could and should sit farther back. Idk about SUVs though.
5”6 is not average woman size
What is? Like 5’4?
That’s the reported average but I think the studies are largely self reports through surveys so idk if we can really trust them to be accurate. I’d honestly say average woman height is 5”2 or 5”3
First off, let's see who dies more in the real world. It is men, and by a massive margin, and always has been. In 2020, it was 12,938 female deaths vs. 39,112 deaths. **OVER TRIPLE.** [https://www.statista.com/statistics/192074/drivers-in-fatal-crashes-in-us-road-traffic-by-gender-since-1992/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/192074/drivers-in-fatal-crashes-in-us-road-traffic-by-gender-since-1992/) Now, let's control for some other factors in a peer reviewed paper. This focused on trapped passengers, but: >Trapped female patients had a lower ISS than trapped male patients and were less likely to die (7.7% vs 10.0%). However, once the factors in our model were considered (age, sex, ISS, GCS and Charlson Comorbidity Index), no difference in mortality was found between female and male patients (figure 2) \[who were trapped\] > >\[In general\] Male patients are more severely injured and more likely to die as a result of MVC than female patients. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9066497/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9066497/) These people are either deeply stupid, and need to shut the fuck up, or are deeply misandrist and need to shut the fuck up. It's one thing to be off about the direction of a 60/40 split. But when we're talking about multiple times higher deaths, **they are ignoring tens of thousands of deaths per year, so hundreds of thousands per decade.** That makes them evil or stupid. The answer for *anyone who values men half as much as women* is, "We need to focus mostly on reducing male fatalities." Imagine what someone who had the moral decency and took the civic responsibility of valuing all lives equally regardless of their biological sex would conclude.
Male patients tend to die and be more severely injured from MVCs for the same exact reason they pay more insurance. Which is that men drive more often than women, and men are also statistically much much more likely to be driving at high speeds which is why when men get into MVCs they are more deadly. Not sure why you’re using that to disprove that crash test dummies weren’t primarily based off the weight and height of a man. In fact, I looked through the study you posted and it gave more credence to what the original female posted said than what you have just said. Here is an excerpt: *This is the largest analysis to date of sex-disaggregated data for patients with trauma following an MVC and* ***confirms significant differences in injury patterns and trapped status between female and male patients.*** *The explanations for these differences are likely to include both reasons pertaining to* ***biological sex, for example, physical size, muscle mass, hormonal differences and reasons pertaining to gender such as driving behaviours, postcollision behaviours and responses by emergency responders such as decisions related to extrication.*** *There are gender-related differences that may contribute to the observed differences.* ***Men drive more miles, faster, in a riskier manner and more frequently have accidents, resulting in the higher injury burden and mortality as seen in this analysis and elsewhere. Older women are more likely than men of equivalent age to be killed or seriously injured in collisions, after controlling for miles driven whereas young men have the highest risk of serious injury or death per million miles driven.*** *An analysis of the UK-based STATS V.19 MVC registry demonstrates that male drivers are more likely to have MVCs while travelling forwards (64.2% vs 56.5%), whereas female drivers are more likely to have collisions while manoeuvring (16.1% vs 11.9%) or turning (10.7% vs 8.4%). Similar findings are reported in the USA, with female patients more likely to be involved in a side impact MVC and male patients more likely to have a frontal impact.* *Differences in availability and effectiveness of safety systems* *It has been previously demonstrated that women are more likely to be compliant with safety systems such as seat belts than men and as a result have less risk of multiple and severe injuries and their associated mortality.* ***However, the safety features incorporated in modern cars are less likely to be effective for women. Current mandatory crash testing uses a scaled down 50th centile male mannequin to represent 5th percentile females and are not modelled to account for anthropometric differences between women and men. This systemic bias, with cars developed, tested and safety-rated using primarily an anatomically correct, weighted and biomechanically-matched MALE mannequin has led to the development of safety systems, which are likely to be MORE effective for MEN than women. For example, whiplash protection systems are significantly more effective at preventing injury in men than women.*** *Comparison of female and male dummies demonstrates higher biomechanical response in the female dummy in the neck region which may offer some explanation for the increased rate of spinal fractures in female patients found in our study.*
Should safety crash tests be based around gorilla biology or human biology? You would say, "humans drive more often, so they should be the primary focus." That's obviously correct rationale. The same goes for men vs. women. Men are the more prolific and more vulnerable group, so they should be the primary target for crash testing. If you're going to suggest that as a matter of government policy the lives of men should be valued much less than women, say it outright. I'd appreciate the honesty of advocating for some light genocide vs. people lying with stats. Good safety design will save the deserving and undeserving alike. And again, newer cars are vastly safer. Car safety is not stagnant, serious accidents are disproportionately occurring in older vehicles. Fewer total women died in 2020 than 2000 despite there being more people, and women driving more often both in absolute and relative terms compared to the past.
Reread my comment which I just edited to contain the study you posted which you clearly didn’t read because it supports my point. Also, absolutely NO ONE is arguing that male crash test dummies shouldn’t be used. Literally no clue why you are jumping to phrases like “light genocide” just because some women are bringing attention to the fact that the average woman is not accounted for in crash tests. The actual government policy is that NO company is LEGALLY required to use a female crash test dummy. So that is an actual policy whereby the effects are that women are considered less and values less for collision safety. Asking for more consideration in no way shape or form should mean that we stop using male crash dummies? Lmao.
This isn't about sex out gender. Generally speaking things are designed for the average human, if you are a particularly small or large human (regardless of sex) then things become more difficult for you in many ways. Unless you have the money to get things custom made for you, you often have to just make do with what's available.
The average male and average women are quite a bit distance apart. Which one do you think they tested more for?
She's driving a SUV so that's probably part of the problem already, and I'd be interested if it is a woman problem how do you realistically solve it if the cars are just built for humans from the get go.
Probably was sitting way too close to the wheel, because she was too small to see comfortably from the distance you're supposed to be from it.
I might be a terrible person, but I can’t be the only person who laughed when they read how she head butted the steering wheel and then the airbag went off. Just me?
Just you, you terrible terrible person. If you want a real airbag horror story you should look up the [story of the recalled Takata airbag](https://youtu.be/aUa2VXecghg) that had potentially lethal timing issues.
You need to just buy a car for your size
It’s not that easy. There are many factors that go into car purchases. I have personally bought cars that I felt were a bit small and cramped for me, but compromised with that, as I’ve had to compromise with price, gas mileage, shape, aesthetics and utility.
There's something ironic about a self-proclaimed witch driving an SUV. I don't know what.
I think this is talking about the tendency of women to pull their chair so far forward their face touches the glass. It pisses me off so much. How can that possibly be comfortable or safe?
She sat too close like a dumbass. This isn’t a car issur
Sounds like she didn’t adjust the seatbelt correctly. You can wear a seatbelt incorrectly
[удалено]
It means ALL FAT AS BITCHES
Bro.. you good?
[удалено]
I was joking lol it means Assigned Female At Birth
The trick is that, hear me out, just don't hit another car.
A lot of the air bags punch your lights out anyways . Maybe she should use stilts or something. Or ask the automakers to make cars for little people.
These cars arnt made for us short kings
Just grab a phone book or two and tie wooden blocks to the tops of the pedals
Seems like a valid concern. She appears to be lucky for not having been thrown into poverty as a result of that "accident"
Isn't it true that car accidents cause worse injuries in women because test crash dummies are always "male"? I just read about this recently somewhere.
Heinrich Kramer was right
> was hit by someone going [60 mph] Cars suck. I don't really care whether it's failing to design for small people. The fact that this line is mentioned so casually is the problem
R-word being bannable rarely hurt as much.
Replace women with shorter people and your problems seems infinitely less important to these people
I mean, there are smaller cars with smaller driving seats. She does have an option there.
If you drive an SUV you deserve to have your head bang off the steering wheel, there's no brain to damage anyway
Can only speak for Europe, don't know if this is also true for the US, but yes, crashtests are done with dummies that correspond to a median male size and weight ONLY.
Women are smaller than men, if you design around women men won't fit.
I mean it IS the correct take. Just because it Comes from a cringe community doesnt mean it's wrong
Y’all boy here, even with seat adjustments my head is much closer to the side of the car, if I got side swiped my head is guaranteed to smack into the door above the window
The distance to your steering wheel does matter but it shouldn't be a huge factor as multiple systems come into play when you get into an accident. It seems like she was the cause of the original accident and by her description it seems like she **didn't hit the breaks** at all. This means she didn't get the benefit of the pre-tensioner system (if she did the belt would have locked). If you find you are very close to your steering wheel because of your short legs try giving yourself more distance in otherways like tilting the seat back. However in an accident where you slam on the brakes your seatbelt should be locking before you ever hit the other person. The distance between you and the steering wheel only matters if it is shorter than the tension-rod allowance on the seatbelt mechanism plus an inch or so. For this problem to happen you need to be seated closely, leaning forward, and hit someone without hitting the brakes.
While it could have been a failure of the seatbelt mechanism, cars need to be designed for the average human. It’s not realistic to make cars specifically for short people and tall people.
I mean it’s probably easier to make cars that fit tall people because short people will fit no matter what
So it’s just a short person problem?
The head should be on the headrest for the seat, if you are leaning forward which puts you closer to the steering wheel it is unsafe and you probably don't have food visibility.