>Another issue is crash test dummy overfitting. For a long time, adult NHSTA and IIHS tests used a 1970s 50%-ile male dummy, which is 5'9" and 171lbs. Regulator

>Another issue is crash test dummy overfitting. For a long time, adult NHSTA and IIHS tests used a 1970s 50%-ile male dummy, which is 5'9" and 171lbs. Regulators called for a female dummy in 1980 but due to budget cutbacks during the Reagan era, initial plans were shelved and the NHSTA didn't put one in a car until 2003. The female dummy is a scaled down version of the male dummy, scaled down to 5%-ile 1970s height and weight (4'11", 108lbs; another model is 4'11", 97lbs). In frontal crash tests, when a female dummy is used, it's always a passenger (a 5%-ile woman is in the driver's seat in one NHSTA side crash test and the IIHS side crash test). For reference, in 2019, the average weight of a U.S. adult male was 198 lbs and the average weight of a U.S. adult female was 171 lbs. Women are neglected in testing of every standard. Essentially they’re benchmarks of computer performance in human form, with the most hopeful data being used. It’s much harder to account for women who have more variation such as hips, breasts, pregnancy status, corporate would rather rather tell you the best results with the cheapest and the best case results. The weight of the dummies, the height, and the lack of variation is both cost cutting, testing the most healthy models, and way to bypass the regulations with clever tricks that most people trust because there aren’t more data sources and it’s a lot of effort to learn more. Most things that are tested are, especially pharmaceutical drugs. They use men’s dosages and at most change bu weight but ignore important factors that are women’s issues since it’s easier to neglect it lazily, then blame the patient’s biology rather than the doctor’s incompetence and lack of research, but the lack of information that drug companies give. Paid drug trials are often signed up for by more risk taking males, and hormone cycles of women make drugs have more variation they’d rather sweep under the rug, you also see the difference in showdogs winners where a female dog’s hormone cycle like her period can destroy performance. Another cost cutting example is the lack of long term effects, they use mice models rather than dogs because it’s cheaper and shows less long term effects, win/win for hiding these results until it’s discovered by real world usage. Something encouraging though are computer physics simulations. Volvo has been at the forefront of safety, they’re the top rated, tested on women before regulations forced others to, making the safety belt and not patenting it, encouraging its usage due to their focus and morality. The results don’t surprise me.