Women’s Safety Overlooked in Car Crash Testing

In 2019, my family experienced a severe head-on collision caused by a wrong-way driver. As he attempted to pass a motorcycle on a hill, his Ford F-150 truck collided directly into our car. The accident left my husband and son with broken bones, while my daughter and I suffered grave injuries. Our seatbelts caused severe abdominal tears, damaging our internal organs. My head trauma resulted from a forceful impact with the airbag, causing a traumatic brain injury.

This led me to question why my son and husband were protected by the same safety devices that endangered my daughter and me. My subsequent research revealed a disquieting truth: women face a 17% higher risk of fatality and a 73% higher risk of serious injury in car crashes compared to men.

While working at a think tank focused on using data and design to address public problems, I believed my connections could initiate change. I discovered that a company produces “biofidelic” crash test dummies designed to account for anatomical differences between genders. However, these dummies are not used by American car manufacturers who can achieve a five-star crash test rating without them.

Men’s stronger neck musculature and broader builds generally fit safety technologies better, while women often sit in what’s considered an “out of position” posture. This results in significant disparities in safety when crashes occur. For instance, seatbelts rest on men’s hip bones, avoiding internal organ damage, and headrests align properly with men’s necks to prevent whiplash.

Despite these known facts, womens’ specific safety needs have been largely ignored. Until 2011, crash tests did not require female dummies, and today, no American manufacturer uses the biofidelic versions. I emailed the chief data officer in the Biden White House, highlighting this issue. However, priorities seemed elsewhere, overshadowing the urgency of female safety in vehicular technology.

I engaged with several officials from the Department of Transportation, including the deputy head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The federal agency’s crash test models predominantly use standards from the 1970s focused on male anatomy. The female dummy represents only a small fraction of the female population. The agency does not mandate crash tests with a female dummy in the driver’s seat.

Their response to my question about this omission was unsatisfactory. They claimed they couldn’t mandate every potential test and defended their advancements in automatic braking. Despite the measures promoted, the lack of female-focused testing leads to unresolved safety risks.

In November, the Trump Transportation Department issued a press release in favor of biofidelic dummies, but no regulatory changes were implemented. The bipartisan She DRIVES Act has been introduced, featuring support from several congress members.

Families aren’t supposed to face severe crashes with poor safety measures. When the government finds that their data overlooks such major discrepancies, one would expect immediate action. Unfortunately, bureaucratic inaction persists.

Now, I question the reliability of the government to protect citizens’ health and wellbeing. Road deaths in the U.S. per 10,000 drivers are higher compared to countries like Mexico and Sierra Leone. This raises a broader concern about the nation’s safety standards.

Hana Schank is a journalist, technologist, and policy strategist. She previously served in the Obama White House and led the Public Interest Technology team at New America.