I understand the impulse to turn the idea of "female" crash test dummies into a joke, and I'd guess that changing the body shape (breasts, wider hips, etc) to reflect typical female body shapes doesn't make much difference.
Overall BODY SIZE makes a HUGE difference, though. Petite women in particular are far more likely to be injured or killed by airbag deployment than average-size males; their shorter legs put them closer to the steering wheel, for example.
Also, women have thinner skull bones and (on average) have less robust muscle and bone strength generally than males. And of course: sometimes, women drive or ride in cars while pregnant.
Taking those gender differences into account in designing safety equipment isn't silly; it's just sensible.
I understand the impulse to turn the idea of "female" crash test dummies into a joke, and I'd guess that changing the body shape (breasts, wider hips, etc) to reflect typical female body shapes doesn't make much difference.
Overall BODY SIZE makes a HUGE difference, though. Petite women in particular are far more likely to be injured or killed by airbag deployment than average-size males; their shorter legs put them closer to the steering wheel, for example.
Also, women have thinner skull bones and (on average) have less robust muscle and bone strength generally than males. And of course: sometimes, women drive or ride in cars while pregnant.
Taking those gender differences into account in designing safety equipment isn't silly; it's just sensible.
Agree 100%.
This is not a stupid idea.
AND this whole grant admits exactly the differences between the sexes- so where does that leave the bio-men in women's sports now?