4 ms·
I'm pretty much floored that they haven't been using female measured test dummies for years now. Are women's lives really valued so cheaply?
by fallingfrog 4y ago
I'm pretty much floored that they haven't been using female measured test dummies for years now. Are women's lives really valued so cheaply?
- shuntress 4y agoAs another comment put it, it is assumed that women are the same as "smaller men". So it is more like they are not thought of rather than "cheaply valued".
- guerrilla 4y agoOkay, but you'd think if they were equally valued that they'd check, no?
- shuntress 4y agoIt's the difference between: "We will run 10 clinical trials testing the efficacy of this drug in men and 5 clinical trials testing its efficacy in women" and "We will run 10 clinical trials testing the efficacy of this drug in men and suggest women take a lower dose"
- maerF0x0 4y agoYeah, so much so that they live something like 7 years longer on average. /s
- Sakos 4y agoI think in many aspects of life, sure, but here it could simply be something akin to how the US air force realized that the idea of "average" seating in jet planes was dangerous and completely divorced from reality, driving their push for individually customizable seating. I think it's still ubiquitous that we measure things that aren't clearly generalizable across a wider population, but we think they are.
- Beltalowda 4y agoIf we look at ~100 years of history with cars, I think it's fairly safe to say that no one's lives are especially valued. Leaded gasoline was introduced even though the dangers were already well understood, it had to take a massive public outcry campaign to get car manufacturers to do anything about driver safety ("Unsafe at any speed" and such), pedestrian and cyclist safety is still under-prioritized in designs, etc.