The Average Man Is Killing Us And He Does Not Even Exist

My cousin Martha drives her silver minivan as if she is transporting the Crown Jewels through a combat zone. (She is actually just transporting three sticky toddlers and a golden retriever that smells like wet carpet.) She trusts that car. She trusts the five-star safety rating. She believes the steel cage around her is a sanctuary. She is wrong. (I do not like being the one to tell her this, but someone has to do it.)

My neighbor Arthur, a man who organizes his sock drawer by thread count, feels perfectly secure when he clicks his seatbelt into place. (He also wears a belt and suspenders simultaneously, which tells you everything about his specific brand of risk management.) However, there is a glaring problem that millions are choosing to ignore. It turns out that the automotive industry has spent the last seventy years designing safety for a person who does not exist. Or rather, a person who only represents half of us. According to the University of Virginia Center for Applied Biomechanics, belt-restrained female occupants are 73 percent more likely to be seriously injured in a frontal crash than men. Seventy-three percent. (I had to read that three times to make sure I was not hallucinating.) It is not a slight discrepancy. It is a systemic failure of engineering and imagination. It is what happens when you treat one body type as the default and everyone else as a variation on a theme. This is a systemic failure that treats half the population as a secondary thought. (I am not being dramatic; I checked the numbers.) We are living in a world where safety is designed for a 1970s man, and the results are lethal.

The Ghost in the Driver Seat: The Rise of Sierra Sam

Meet Sierra Sam. (I wish I was making that name up, as it sounds like a rejected character from a low-budget western.) Sam was the first crash test dummy, born in 1949 to test aircraft ejection seats. He is the patron saint of automotive safety. The problem is that Sam is a 50th-percentile male. He weighs approximately 171 pounds and stands 5 feet 9 inches tall. (I have not weighed 171 pounds since the Clinton administration, but that is a different column.) For decades, Sam and his brothers have been the only ones invited to the party.

This logic is as flawed as it is arrogant. It assumes that a woman is simply a smaller version of a man. (My ex-wife would have many things to say about that assumption, most of them involving colorful metaphors.) It ignores fundamental differences in anatomy, such as neck strength, pelvis shape, and bone density. When a car hits a wall at 35 miles per hour, those differences are the only things that matter. Martha is not just a shorter Sam. She is a completely different mechanical equation. My old friend Bob - a man who still uses a flip phone and thinks the internet is a passing fad - once told me that "a body is a body." (Bob is frequently wrong, but he is wrong with such gusto that you almost want to believe him.) But biological reality does not care about Bob's gusto.

The Anatomy of Bias and the Whiplash Gap

Women generally have less muscle mass in their necks than men. This is not an opinion; it is basic biology. Because of this, women are much more susceptible to whiplash. (I once got whiplash from looking at a bill for a transmission repair, so I sympathize.) Yet, for years, the industry did not use a dummy that accurately reflected this. Even when they introduced a "female" dummy, it was often just a scaled-down version of the male dummy. It is essentially a very tall twelve-year-old boy in a wig. The industry refers to this as the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female. She represents the smallest 5 percent of women, weighing about 108 pounds. (I have carried groceries that weigh more than this dummy.)

A 2020 report from the Government Accountability Office highlighted that while the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has made strides, the lack of representative data for female occupants remains a critical gap in federal safety standards. (The GAO is not known for its flair for the dramatic, so when they call something a "critical gap," you should probably pay attention.) We are effectively stuck in a bureaucratic loop. We know the data is missing. We know women are getting hurt at higher rates. But the rules do not change because the rules were written by men who look exactly like Sierra Sam. I recall a conversation I had with a former engineer at a major domestic automaker. (He smelled like stale coffee and spoke in nothing but acronyms.) He admitted that it does not matter how many cameras your car has if the seatbelt is positioned to crush your chest instead of your sternum.

The Cost of Being an Afterthought

Furthermore, the way women sit in cars is often different from men. Because women are, on average, shorter, they tend to sit closer to the steering wheel to reach the pedals. This changes everything about how an airbag deploys. It changes how the steering column behaves in a collision. I spoke to a guy named Dave who works in automotive logistics. (Dave wears those shirts with too many pockets and thinks salt is a spice.) I asked him why we do not just change the dummies. He told me it is expensive. He told me it takes time to calibrate the sensors. He told me the regulatory hurdles are immense. (I told him I would pay for the sensors myself if it meant Martha did not have to worry about her sternum shattering in a fender bender.)

It is worth noting that some progress is happening, even if it feels like it is moving at the speed of a tectonic plate. Researchers in Sweden have developed the BioRID dummy, which is specifically designed to model female whiplash risks. However, having the technology and requiring its use are two very different things. Until government mandates change, manufacturers will likely stick to the path of least resistance. (And by least resistance, I mean the path that does not involve spending millions on new plastic people.) We are effectively stuck in a bureaucratic loop where the data shows a problem, but the rules remain rooted in the past.

The Digital Revolution and the Death of the Physical Dummy

There is a glimmer of hope on the horizon, and it does not involve plastic dolls at all. Instead of crashing one or two physical cars with one or two physical dummies, engineers can now run thousands of simulations using digital "Human Body Models" or HBMs. (I am told these computers are very powerful, though I still struggle to get my printer to recognize my laptop.) These models can be adjusted to represent any age, weight, height, or physiological condition. They can simulate how a pregnant woman’s body reacts to an airbag, or how an elderly man’s brittle ribs withstand a side-impact collision.

This means that while a car company might use virtual testing to make a car safer for everyone, they still have to pass the "Average Man" test to get that five-star sticker. (It is essentially the equivalent of earning a doctorate in theoretical physics only to be evaluated solely on your ability to frost a cupcake.) In the United States, we are still debating whether or not it is feasible to require a female dummy in the driver seat for all tests. It is a frustrating, circular argument that prioritizes corporate convenience over human life. My friend Sarah told me that she will not feel safe on the road until the law treats her body as the standard, not an outlier. (Sarah is a surgeon, so she knows exactly what an outlier looks like on an operating table.)

How to Navigate a Biased World Without Losing Your Mind

So, where does this leave you? If you are a woman, or a man who is not 5 feet 9 inches tall, you are probably feeling a bit uneasy about your daily commute. (I am currently considering walking everywhere, although my physical fitness level suggests that is a terrible idea.) You cannot wait for the federal government to fix this; they are busy arguing about things that are much less important than your spine. What you can do is become a more informed consumer. Look beyond the five-star rating.

Look for cars that perform well in the "small overlap" front crash tests, which are notoriously difficult to pass and often reveal more about structural integrity than the standard tests. You should also pay attention to how you sit in your vehicle. Adjust your seat so that you are as far from the steering wheel as possible while still being able to fully depress the pedals. Ensure the headrest is positioned to support the back of your head, not your neck. These are small adjustments, but they can make a difference in how your body interacts with the safety systems that were not necessarily designed for you. It is a bit like wearing a suit that was tailored for someone else; you have to do your best to make it fit, even if it is not perfect.

Additionally, support organizations that are pushing for safety equity. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) often conducts more rigorous testing than the government. Ultimately, the "Average Man" needs to retire. He has had a good run, but he is no longer representative of the world we live in. We are a diverse species, and our safety technology should reflect that diversity. (He is probably right, but being difficult is the only way things ever change for the better.) We must stop accepting a safety standard that leaves half of us in the dark.

Did You Know?

The first female crash test dummy was not used in the United States until 2003, and even then, she was only placed in the passenger seat. It took decades for regulators to even consider that a woman might be the one behind the wheel.

The automotive industry has spent decades perfecting the art of protecting a very specific type of person. While cars are undoubtedly safer today than they were thirty years ago, that safety has not been distributed equally. The "Average Man" has been the protagonist of the safety story for too long, and it is time for a broader cast of characters to take the stage. We cannot continue to ignore the biological realities that make certain occupants more vulnerable than others. It is not just an engineering challenge; it is an ethical imperative that affects every single person who gets behind the wheel. As we move toward a future of autonomous vehicles and even more advanced safety tech, we have a unique opportunity to reset the scales. We can move away from the rigid, outdated physical testing of the past and embrace a more fluid, digital approach that accounts for every human body. Until then, do not let a five-star rating give you a false sense of security. Be critical, be informed, and remember that the most important safety feature in any car is a driver who understands the limitations of the machine they are operating. (And if you see Arthur, tell him his suspenders are a bit much, but his dedication to data is almost admirable.)

⏱️ Quick Takeaways

Women are 73% more likely to be seriously injured in frontal crashes because safety systems are optimized for male anatomy. The standard crash test dummy is based on a 1970s male, which fails to represent female bone density and muscle mass. Virtual testing using Human Body Models (HBMs) offers a path toward safety equity by simulating thousands of different body types.

❓ Why are female crash dummies not used in every test?

The short answer surprises most people: it is largely due to outdated regulations that have not kept pace with modern biomechanics. For decades, the industry relied on a single 50th-percentile male dummy to represent the entire population. While some progress has been made with 5th-percentile female dummies, these are often just scaled-down versions of male models rather than accurate biological representations of female physiology. Without federal mandates requiring their use in all scenarios, many manufacturers prioritize the tests they are legally required to pass.

❓ Are women really at a higher risk in car accidents?

This depends on your situation, but the statistical evidence is quite sobering and hard to ignore. Research from institutions like the University of Virginia has shown that belt-restrained female occupants are significantly more likely to suffer serious injuries than their male counterparts in similar frontal crashes. This discrepancy exists because safety systems like airbags and seatbelts were essentially optimized for a male frame, which has different mass distribution and skeletal strength. It is a biological gap that technology has yet to fully bridge.

❓ What is the 50th percentile male dummy?

Here is the thing about the 50th percentile male: he is a plastic representation of a man from the 1970s who weighs roughly 171 pounds and stands about 5 feet 9 inches tall. He was designed to be the "average" human for testing purposes. Unfortunately, he does not represent the bone density, muscle mass distribution, or seating posture of roughly half the driving population. By designing for this specific "average," engineers inadvertently create systems that are less effective for anyone who falls outside those narrow physical parameters.

❓ Is virtual testing better than using physical dummies?

The reality is that virtual testing offers a level of granularity that physical dummies cannot hope to achieve. Computer models can simulate thousands of different body types, ages, and physiological conditions in seconds. While physical crash tests remain the gold standard for regulatory approval, digital "human body models" are the most promising path toward achieving true safety equity on the road. They allow engineers to see exactly how an impact affects internal organs and skeletal structures across a diverse range of humans.

❓ How can I find out if my car is safe for women?

This is a difficult task because standard window stickers do not break down safety ratings by gender. However, you can look deeper into the data provided by organizations like the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) or the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP). They have begun to incorporate more diverse testing scenarios that better reflect the risks faced by different occupants. You can also research specific safety features like adjustable seatbelt anchors and advanced airbag systems that are designed to adapt to the size of the occupant.

References:

University of Virginia Center for Applied Biomechanics (2019). Injury Vulnerability and Effectiveness of Occupant Protection Systems for Older and Female Occupants.

Government Accountability Office (2020). Vehicle Safety: NHTSA Should Take Additional Actions to Help Ensure Female Occupants Are Adequately Protected.

Traffic Injury Prevention (2021). A Comparison of Injury Risks between Male and Female Occupants in Modern Vehicles. Taylor & Francis Online.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2022). The Gender Gap in Crash Injury Risks.

World Health Organization (2023). Global Status Report on Road Safety. WHO Department of Social Determinants of Health.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional engineering, legal, or automotive safety advice. Safety ratings and risks vary by vehicle and individual circumstances. Always consult with a qualified professional or official regulatory data before making vehicle purchasing decisions.