4 ms·

This isn’t the first female crash test dummy at all. Dr. Mark Pearlman at University of Michigan invented a pregnant crash test dummy like 30 years ago. There a

This isn’t the first female crash test dummy at all. Dr. Mark Pearlman at University of Michigan invented a pregnant crash test dummy like 30 years ago. There are plenty of female crash test dummies. Edit: according to congressional inquiry the NHTSA isn’t necessarily currently using “female” crash test dummies[0]. Still, they had been invented before. 0: https://norton.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/norton-lawrence-castor-delauro-and-schakowsky-receive-response-from https://norton.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/norton-...

taeric 4y ago
This got me to do a quick search, which yields https://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsas-crash-test-dummies https://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsas-crash-test-dummies. I'm curious how they pick which dummies to use, as they have 5th percentile for women there. That said, it does seem to contradict the notion in the headline, at least. Edit: I think being fair to the concept of the article, the claim is the dummies in my link are just scaled down versions of each other?
- bckygldstn 4y ago
  Here's the NHSTA report for a 2015 Ford Focus, the female model is used in the passenger seat [1]. In a quick look I couldn't find any tests with female drivers though. The male [2] and female [3] dummies look to be in different proportions. [1]: https://nrd-static.nhtsa.dot.gov/reports/vehdb/v00000/v09000/v09086R001.pdf https://nrd-static.nhtsa.dot.gov/reports/vehdb/v00000/v09000... [2] https://www.humaneticsgroup.com/products/anthropomorphic-test-devices/frontal-impact/hybrid-iii-50th-male/hybrid-iii-50th-male https://www.humaneticsgroup.com/products/anthropomorphic-tes... [3] https://www.humaneticsgroup.com/products/anthropomorphic-test-devices/frontal-impact/hybrid-iii-5th-female https://www.humaneticsgroup.com/products/anthropomorphic-tes...
- flaviut 4y ago
  The article specifically mentions the 5th percentile dummy you pointed out being inadequate: > The dummy that is sometimes used as a proxy for women is a scaled-down version of the male one, roughly the size of a 12-year-old girl. > At 149cm tall (4ft 8ins) and weighing 48kg (7st 5lb), it represents the smallest 5% of women by the standards of the mid-1970s. > However, a team of Swedish engineers has finally developed the first dummy, or to use the more technical term - seat evaluation tool - designed on the body of the average woman. > Their dummy is 162cm (5ft 3ins) tall and weighs 62kg (9st 7lbs), more representative of the female population.
  - taeric 4y ago
    Ah, nice! I definitely didn't catch that on my read through. Curiously, this doesn't really answer if the new model can be seen as just a scaled up version of that? Cards on the table, I see no reason not to explore this; such that if my post feels like I'm arguing against it, that is a mistake in tone. I do question if it was truly never explored in the past, or if there are previous results that just show diminished returns on extra variety? I'll note that nobody is calling for better racial makeup on the evaluation tool. I would expect that there are height/weight differences spread across groups other than just the sexes. I'm also inclined to believe that we are far more alike than you would expect when it comes to how we are in a crash.
    - flaviut 4y ago
      > Curiously, this doesn't really answer if the new model can be seen as just a scaled up version of that? It does though! It talks about how women are shorter & lighter (which the scaled model addresses) as well as how their muscles and general body shape are different from men: > Females are shorter and lighter than males, on average, and they have different muscle strengths > "We have differences in the shape of the torso and the centre of gravity and the outline of our hips and pelvis," she explained. Anyway, I'm certainly not an expert on this stuff. I imagine that extra testing is super expensive, especially if each test ends up destroying a car. I think it'd be great to have more tests for different groups. But starting to test for 50% of the human population is a massive low-hanging fruit here.
      - taeric 4y ago
        Apologies, I think they established that there is a need to do a test on this. What I question, is that the 5% was such a specific choice for the existing tools, that I feel that it needs to also be established that that "chesterton's fence" wasn't picked by its own research. That make sense?
        DiggyJohnson 4y ago
        > That make sense? Not OP, but I think you’ve done a pretty good job laying out your nuanced question / request for additional information. I have the same question, but didn’t feel motivated enough to craft a comment myself, so I’m here validating yours. Cheers
the_lonely_road 4y ago
“The first” followed by anything seems to be such an unbelievable marketing gimmick at this point.
- dang 4y ago
  Indeed. We almost routinely take it out now. Submitted title was "The First Female Crash Dummy Has Arrived". We've also changed the URL from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-first-female-crash-dummy-has-arrived-180981072/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-first-female-c... to the original article it points to. Et tu, Smithsonian?
- traceroute66 4y ago
  > “The first” followed by anything seems to be such an unbelievable marketing gimmick at this point. Trust me, this isn't a marketing gimmick. You could say its the "real" first. See my comment lower down the page on Astrid Linder.
  - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
    This comment is very bizarre to me, based on the request to > trust me But I went and found your other comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33511009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33511009 It is not at all obvious to me how this is the first of its kinda instead of an improvement on previous “female” crash dummies. I know this conversation has strayed into pure semantics, but the idea that an improvement to an existing thing is actually the “‘real’ first” seems like an obvious dubious claim. To be blunt: it seems like clickbait, or at least an attempt to overinflate.
    - traceroute66 4y ago
      So you're basically saying "We invented it 30 years ago, it can't be done better" ? What a snob. Reality is that as Astrid Linder's body work proves. The 30 year old model is, essentially, incorrect. Believe what you like, but as I said, this really is the first "real" one that truly reflects the female body and takes into account all modern knowledge about both crashes and the female anatomy. Stay stuck in the past if you like. But I for one recognise the value of the work of Astrid Linter in keeping women safe.
uri4 4y ago
gw98 4y ago
Yeah there's a relatively ancient female crash test dummy in the Science Museum in London. Photo I took. These folks have seen some shit in their time: https://imgur.com/TsEtUAx https://imgur.com/TsEtUAx

taeric 4y ago

This got me to do a quick search, which yields https://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsas-crash-test-dummies https://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsas-crash-test-dummies. I'm curious how they pick which dummies to use, as they have 5th percentile for women there. That said, it does seem to contradict the notion in the headline, at least. Edit: I think being fair to the concept of the article, the claim is the dummies in my link are just scaled down versions of each other?

bckygldstn 4y ago
Here's the NHSTA report for a 2015 Ford Focus, the female model is used in the passenger seat [1]. In a quick look I couldn't find any tests with female drivers though. The male [2] and female [3] dummies look to be in different proportions. [1]: https://nrd-static.nhtsa.dot.gov/reports/vehdb/v00000/v09000/v09086R001.pdf https://nrd-static.nhtsa.dot.gov/reports/vehdb/v00000/v09000... [2] https://www.humaneticsgroup.com/products/anthropomorphic-test-devices/frontal-impact/hybrid-iii-50th-male/hybrid-iii-50th-male https://www.humaneticsgroup.com/products/anthropomorphic-tes... [3] https://www.humaneticsgroup.com/products/anthropomorphic-test-devices/frontal-impact/hybrid-iii-5th-female https://www.humaneticsgroup.com/products/anthropomorphic-tes...
flaviut 4y ago
The article specifically mentions the 5th percentile dummy you pointed out being inadequate: > The dummy that is sometimes used as a proxy for women is a scaled-down version of the male one, roughly the size of a 12-year-old girl. > At 149cm tall (4ft 8ins) and weighing 48kg (7st 5lb), it represents the smallest 5% of women by the standards of the mid-1970s. > However, a team of Swedish engineers has finally developed the first dummy, or to use the more technical term - seat evaluation tool - designed on the body of the average woman. > Their dummy is 162cm (5ft 3ins) tall and weighs 62kg (9st 7lbs), more representative of the female population.
- taeric 4y ago
  Ah, nice! I definitely didn't catch that on my read through. Curiously, this doesn't really answer if the new model can be seen as just a scaled up version of that? Cards on the table, I see no reason not to explore this; such that if my post feels like I'm arguing against it, that is a mistake in tone. I do question if it was truly never explored in the past, or if there are previous results that just show diminished returns on extra variety? I'll note that nobody is calling for better racial makeup on the evaluation tool. I would expect that there are height/weight differences spread across groups other than just the sexes. I'm also inclined to believe that we are far more alike than you would expect when it comes to how we are in a crash.
  - flaviut 4y ago
    > Curiously, this doesn't really answer if the new model can be seen as just a scaled up version of that? It does though! It talks about how women are shorter & lighter (which the scaled model addresses) as well as how their muscles and general body shape are different from men: > Females are shorter and lighter than males, on average, and they have different muscle strengths > "We have differences in the shape of the torso and the centre of gravity and the outline of our hips and pelvis," she explained. Anyway, I'm certainly not an expert on this stuff. I imagine that extra testing is super expensive, especially if each test ends up destroying a car. I think it'd be great to have more tests for different groups. But starting to test for 50% of the human population is a massive low-hanging fruit here.
    - taeric 4y ago
      Apologies, I think they established that there is a need to do a test on this. What I question, is that the 5% was such a specific choice for the existing tools, that I feel that it needs to also be established that that "chesterton's fence" wasn't picked by its own research. That make sense?
      - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
        > That make sense? Not OP, but I think you’ve done a pretty good job laying out your nuanced question / request for additional information. I have the same question, but didn’t feel motivated enough to craft a comment myself, so I’m here validating yours. Cheers

the_lonely_road 4y ago

“The first” followed by anything seems to be such an unbelievable marketing gimmick at this point.

dang 4y ago
Indeed. We almost routinely take it out now. Submitted title was "The First Female Crash Dummy Has Arrived". We've also changed the URL from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-first-female-crash-dummy-has-arrived-180981072/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-first-female-c... to the original article it points to. Et tu, Smithsonian?
traceroute66 4y ago
> “The first” followed by anything seems to be such an unbelievable marketing gimmick at this point. Trust me, this isn't a marketing gimmick. You could say its the "real" first. See my comment lower down the page on Astrid Linder.
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  This comment is very bizarre to me, based on the request to > trust me But I went and found your other comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33511009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33511009 It is not at all obvious to me how this is the first of its kinda instead of an improvement on previous “female” crash dummies. I know this conversation has strayed into pure semantics, but the idea that an improvement to an existing thing is actually the “‘real’ first” seems like an obvious dubious claim. To be blunt: it seems like clickbait, or at least an attempt to overinflate.
  - traceroute66 4y ago
    So you're basically saying "We invented it 30 years ago, it can't be done better" ? What a snob. Reality is that as Astrid Linder's body work proves. The 30 year old model is, essentially, incorrect. Believe what you like, but as I said, this really is the first "real" one that truly reflects the female body and takes into account all modern knowledge about both crashes and the female anatomy. Stay stuck in the past if you like. But I for one recognise the value of the work of Astrid Linter in keeping women safe.

uri4 4y ago

gw98 4y ago

Yeah there's a relatively ancient female crash test dummy in the Science Museum in London. Photo I took. These folks have seen some shit in their time: https://imgur.com/TsEtUAx https://imgur.com/TsEtUAx