They're blowing up an issue. "Industry data shows that part of the reason women are at greater risk than men is that we tend to drive smaller, lighter vehicles

They're blowing up an issue. "Industry data shows that part of the reason women are at greater risk than men is that we tend to drive smaller, lighter vehicles, while men gravitate toward bigger cars and trucks." Ok. So that's simply choice, not negligence or bad design. "For example, the neck musculature of an average woman contains far less column strength and muscle mass than a man’s, making women 22.1% more likely to suffer a head injury than men." IE, men are physically stronger in some ways. If they make the vehicles safer to compensate, men will still have lower injury rates. "With a president who himself knows the pain of losing female loved ones to a car crash, and our nation’s first female vice president, who herself is at greater risk every day she buckles into a car, if not now, when?" Good lord. I've always thought Fast Company was a trash magazine, but geez. To the extent they should test cars against male and female morphologies in order to ensure they aren't optimizing safety for one gender over the other, great. Chest seatbelts shouldn't garrote smaller women. That's reasonable. But the big problem is just different behavioral and innate physical differences, and that isn't going to respond to new legislation. Oh, and just because I was curious, here are some stats: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/males-and-females https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/males.... Females are more likely to get injured then males in similar accidents. Still, nearly twice as many males are killed/injured in car crashes than females. Cars are dangerous any way you look at it.