Talk:Crash test dummy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ryandobie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashleynicole11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

older entries

Not to be pedantic, but I saw this:

This testing involved the use of 1000km/h (600 mph) rocket sleds, a speed beyond the capability of human volunteers to tolerate.

Human bodies can withstand any speed-- it's acceleration and jerk that are tough on a human body.

Now it may be that the rocket sled ride is so rough at that speed that the jarring effects could be severely damaging to a human body, but that pertains to the particulars of the transportation method and, as well, the "rough ride" aspect is itself acceleration and jerk (in directions usually not parallel to the motion).

Otherwise, good article! Mu Gamma 05:20, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - you're obviously correct. My (duh!!) oversight. Denni 20:04, 2004 May 21 (UTC)

---

I think less exuberant headings would help.  ;) Markalexander100 07:34, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

De-exhubericated. Denni

---

I liked the article and learned quite a bit. This last being the text of an encyclodia article for me. However, I noticed one missing aspect. There was (and remains) a series of television ads in which test dummies undergo various adventures for various reasons. They became quite popular for a while and I seem to remember the rights (held by the US Government?) being given to a company which then made quite a bit of money licensing toys(?) and other stuff(?). Nothing here about that that I could find, not even a link. Would be good to fill in briefly, I think. 163.151.0.253 18:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

• At Markalexander's request, I have rendered the headings more encyclopedic. I have also done some additional internal and external linking, and made some minor copyedit changes for clarification. I would prefer not to add the "crash test dummy" adventures to this article; I recall them as well, but including them would not contribute in any meaningful way to an understanding of the history and contemporary role of dummies in vehicle safety. Denni 21:59, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

---

This sentance: "King's calculations indicate that since 1987, cadaver research has saved 8500 lives annually" is vague. Does this mean that cadaver research indicated necessary changes that were then incorporated into autos built since 1987, and these changes have saved 8500 lives annually? The sentance as it stands also could be read as saying that cadaver research conducted since 1987 has saved 8500 lives annually in those same years. Are cadaver research and animal testing still used? If not, when were they phased out? The article says that "By the mid-1950s, the bulk of the information cadaver testing could provide had been harvested"; if this is so, where does the 1987 date come from? Did it take the auto industry thirty years to incorporate design changes? JHCC 13:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I second this; this statement was the only weird and confusing point in this great article. Tempshill 17:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks for the prompt. Denni 19:25, 2004 May 23 (UTC)

You're welcome. Still would like to know more about current status of cadaver & animal testing. JHCC 16:23, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea about the status of cadaver testing, except that, for soft tissue injuries, it remains an important source of data. I'd refer you to Mary Roackh's book for more on that. As far as animal testing goes, GM definitely does not use it, but I ran into an article from PETA or someone similar saying that it is still being used by Ford in New Zealand. I went back through my bookmark history but could not track it down. So with that clue, I leave it to you :)

Since I have this obsessive-compulsive thing about finding what I'm looking for, I can report that animal testing appears to have ended. None of the Big Three manufacturers (General Motors, Ford, or Chrysler) use animal testing any longer. I'm now going to check the article and see if that necessitates changes. Denni 19:33, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

---

Pounds here are normal pounds as units of mass, just as the kilograms are

While 'a dummy would mass 50kg' is technically correct, more people will understand 'a dummy would weigh 50kg' so I've changed it back. The distinction between mass and weight is not significant here (unless we are crash testing spacecraft...). DJ Clayworth 20:01, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

If we talk about persons (or in this case dummies) in a general, informative article, then with '50 kg' we mean weight, not mass. Also, using SI units -in this case kg- there must be a space between the number and the unit symbol; '50 kg', not '50kg'. SI uses spaces to separate groups of three digits, no dots or commas. MH, 2004/05/21 22:43 (CET)

Let's be fair about it. People will generally relate to a number in pounds better if they live in the US, Canada, or Britain. (And even in Canada, where meat, dairy, and produce are sold by the kilogram and deli products by the hectogram, change is coming slowly but surely). The French and the Australians (the latter who went about metrication in a quick and civilized fashion) have no trouble with 'mass.' Furthermore, you introduce a fundamental error into the article if you decide arbitrarily to use kg as a measure of weight. It is not. Mass is mass, weight is the product of mass and gravitational aceleration. Mass in SI is expressed in grams or derivations of such. Mass in SB (Systéme Barbarique) is measured in slugs. An appropriate unit, I think, for such a goofy way of measuring things (yes, you may call me a fanatic on the subject. Thank you thank you.) Weight, on the other hand, is expressed in Newtons in the metric system (and one kg mass is roughly 10 N weight) and pounds in the imperial system, where 1 slug mass = 32 pounds.

So you can't have it both ways. Make the intellectual stretch and accept that the metric system is going to visiting even the backwaters of the US within the next few decades. Treat this as an opportunity to learn instead of to status quo. Learn how to give up what the non-metric nations have been doing for years - using weird and bizarre units which are hard to convert one to another, and which often don't make immediate sense internally (why, for heaven's sake, are there four different types of miles used in the US?). Since this is really an amerocentrism issue, I'm converting them back, and I ask that you respect the rationale behind it. Denni 19:25, 2004 May 23 (UTC)

In the interest of peace and solidarity, I have linked both 'mass' and 'weight' to their corresponding articles. Learning is better than arguing.Denni 19:57, 2004 May 23 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand your options here. You can choose not to call this weight, but that's about your only option.

Just keep in mind a few simple points:

• Your choosing not to use this word does not mean that someone else who doesn't make the same choice is making an error.
• It is not a valid alternative to continue to call it weight, but to misapply a definition of that ambiguous word which in inappropriate and wrong in the circumstances.

Note specifically that the pounds used for this purpose are the ones which are, by definition, 0.453 592 37 kg. Nobody ever makes two different measurements, of two different quantities, when they express these measurements in both pounds and kilograms. You were being downright silly in the way you had this. Gene Nygaard 04:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have restored my changes in this article. There is no "weight" in any meaning other than the one which is a synonym for "mass" in physics jargon involved in the "Crash test dummy" numbers.

It seems that User:Dwindrim "Denni" has difficulty understanding the concept that this discussion should take place here, not on my talk page.

Note that I did not call this mass by its synonymous name "weight" in my revisions, and I didn't insist that Denni or anyone else call it weight; I merely left the unambiguous-in-the-context term "mass" which had been inserted by either Denni or some other earlier editor. There is no reason to drag a red herring into the mix, by throwing in an extraneous, irrelevant word "weight" into the discussion of the family.

Denni also seems to have difficulty following the link to pound, something which I had included in my previous comments as well as here, to figure out that the pounds used here are units of mass.

So I guess I will include a few references on that point here as well. See more on this at Talk:Pound.

Here is the official, legal definition of a pound--quoting the U.S. definition, but it is the worldwide definition, since the 1959 agreement mentioned within here, from the Federal Register Notice of July 1, 1959, F.R. Doc. 59-5442: [1]

Announcement. Effective July 1, 1959, all calibrations in the U.S. customary system of weights and measures carried out by the National Bureau of Standards will continue to be based upon metric measurement standards and, except those for the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey as noted below, will be made in terms of the following exact equivalents and appropriate multiples and submultiples:

1 yard= 0.914 4 meter
1 pound (avoirdupois)= 0.453 592 37 kilogram

Currently, the units defined by these same equivalents, which have been designated as the International Yard and the International Pound, respectively, will be used by the National Standards Laboratories of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and United Kingdom; thus there will be brought about international accord on the yard and pound by the English-speaking nations of the world, in precise measurements involving these basic units.

See the link to the full text of the document above for more on the U.S. definition for the 66 years before this common definition was agreed upon, defining the pound as a slightly different, exact fraction of a kilogram. Of course, neither of these redefinitions changed the fact that the pounds were units of mass; they only changed the precise standards for these units of mass.

One of Denni's major problems is an inability to understand the simple fact that "weight" is an ambiguous word, one with several different meanings. He thinks that the fact that some people call the avoirdupis pound a "unit of weight" identifies it as something different from a "unit of mass"—but it does not. Something that is called a "unit of weight" might be a unit of force—something which is different from a unit of mass—but that is not an inevitability. Consider a couple of facts:

• Kilograms are "units of weight," and they are so identified with great frequency. Furthermore, when kilograms are used as units of weight, they are almost always the proper SI units for the purpose. Note, in that regard, that the once-acceptable kilograms force are not a part of the SI, and they can therefore never be the proper SI units for anything.

• Troy ounces and troy pounds are "units of weight." However, there is one significant way in which the troy units of weight differ not only from their avoirdupois cousins, but from grams and kilograms as well. The troy units of weight have never spawned units of force of the same name, as avoirdupois pounds have, and as kilograms have. There is no troy ounce force, and there never has been a troy ounce force.

Gene Nygaard 09:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the American Engineering System of units, a pound is both a unit of mass, and the unit of force corresponding to the weight of one pound-mass under standard gravity. Where this would be ambiguous, the terms pound-mass and pound-force are used.

While in the specific context of physics, weight is the force exerted by gravity, in common usage, weight can be synonymous with mass. Weight is a very old word, older in fact than instruments that measure force (such as a spring scale). The word weight was in use when the instrument used to "weigh" was a pan balance, which measures mass, and continues in this function. Shimmin 19:04, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Engineering literature and textbooks will somtimes use lb_m and lb_f to differentiate between mass and force. However, the subscripts are usually left off because they really are not needed in a context where everyone is aware of the difference. Also, if you really want to get picky about Imperial units units of mass, then use Slug (mass).

Metric is no better than imperial units on this front; the Kilogram-force abomination is sometimes used and i recently saw a pressure guage with units Kg/m².

I would suggest using subscripts (lb_m and lb_f) when more clarity is desired. Duk 05:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Caption problems

Many of the captions seem too close to the normal text, deosn't Wikipedia have a better way of doing this? Also, when describing THOR, the text "dummies. THOR's range of sensors is also greater in quantity and sensitivity than those of Hybrid III." spills over into another row making it really ugly. Unfortunately, I do not know how to fix this. --Exigentsky 04:21, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 19:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

---

Hybrid III is used for some rear impact tests. The text stated it had "no ability" to assess different types of accidents from frontal impact.

some Notes concerning the content

Hello. I'm working on the german article and wondered reading the following:

• Colonel John Paul Stapp USAF propelled himself over 630 mph (1010 km/h) on a rocket sled and stopped in less than a second (in volounteer testing)
  • This testing involved the use of high acceleration to 1000 km/h (600 mph) rocket sleds, beyond the capability of human volunteers to tolerate (in dummy evolution).

One of both should be false, unless the colonel did not survive his testing - but i suppose he did. And in addition to that, the velocity calculations between km/h and mph seem strange. --Nerdi (de:wp) 22.March\06

---

In the reference to acceleration in the third line of "Dummy Evolution", it is incorrectly measured in km/h. Acceleration, by definition is a change in speed and must be measured in km/h^2. I tried to change it before but couldn't work the superscript, and also I don't know if the numbers in the article are a correct measurement of acceleration. Could someone fix this please. -- Thomas

Dummy Evolution quirks & clarifications

There are two parts in the Dummy Evolution section that look particularly strange to me. First is the mention of the development of the "5th percentile female dummy." This seems likely to have been a typo for "50th percentile female dummy," as it follows closely behind the section on the 50th percentile male dummy above.

Following this, there is a segment discussing the development of the Hybrid II series which, it currently says, came out in 1972. Apparently following this in 1973 was a 50th percentile male dummy. So what was it that came out in 1972? This needs clarification. -Jarsyl 09:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

5th %ile female is correct (see Denton 5th F) ; the 5th female and 95th male are made to represent the extremes of adult size. There's no 50th female. Jablomih (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So what kind of and measurements do Dummies Make?

I think this article fails to address exactly how people use dummies to improve car safety. What kind of measurements do they make off of them? What kind of instruments do they put in dummies? Unfortunately I don't know the answer to these questions yet...

Update: Here's a great article that talks about the accelerometers and potentiometers they put in dummies. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/oct07/5557/4

Subheight640 (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually you wouldn't measure the velocity of the ATD, but the acceleration/deceleration, and the velocity would be calculated. The other measurements usually include lumbar forces for vertical impacts. There are others as well. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 03:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge with popular culture article

I think a merge would be good.--gordonrox24 (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree (presuming you're talking about the IPC article). The IPC stuff (with the possible exception of the US Department of Transportation material, which still needs to be sourced) is irrelevant to understanding the subject of this article, and serves no useful encyclopedic purpose. Mintrick (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am talking about the Crash test dummies in popular culture article. I didn't suggest the merge but I did write a litte note here. The IPC article was a WP:FA for five years, so I am unclear as to how it could serve no encyclopedic purpose. I think a merge would be good because this article and the IPC page are really all about dummies. If you look at the way most WP pages are set up, there is not a different page for different articles related to the one subject. It would just make sense to me to have everything about the dummies in one article.--gordonrox24 (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the IPC article was never featured, the main article was (and it was rightfully removed). And no, these articles are not the same. This article is all about the engineering and practical aspects of using crash test dummies. The other article is entirely indistinguishable from a hundred and a half others in category: in popular culture, where the subject makes some brief appearance in a random piece of media, with no evidence of significance to the subject at hand. Mintrick (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh crap you are right. I am looking at this article thinking it is IPC. In that case then I think a delete of the IPC article is almost necessary. It has no references so... I am not an expert on this topic. I just saw another editor proposing a merge.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge complete. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

See also

Why the **** is MythBusters there?173.49.239.254 (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed it, just to be safe. If someone wants it in the article, it should not be in the resources section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.188.78 (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Human cadavers are still being used in tests

I found this link: http://www.thelocal.se/11604/20080507/ Someone could perhaps put it into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.18.209 (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the point here? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Testing section

Most of the unsourced content in this section is irrelevant to the subject of testing. It should all be deleted and replaced with related content. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Crash Symbol

I think linking or explaining about the yellow/black checked circle on the dummies and crash targets is a must. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.219.91.209 (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Cadaver testing

Some relevant sources that could be used for this section include "Response of the human cadaver abdomen to high-speed seatbelt pretensioner loading" This article gives a different insight on "Crash test dummy" and gives us information how to prevent injury on high impact speeds and talks about how even though the seatbelt is supposed to save us, it also causes many injuries to the abdomen. Cadavers have been used to see how we can modify the seatbelt or how we can help prevent injury to impact. Ashleynicole11 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think ethics of both animal and human cadaver testing could be under a separate section. I found a relevant source for human cadavers titled "Use of human cadavers in automobile crash test This source talks about how use of human cadavers went under trail and the ethical issues that arise, but also how accurate cadavers can be for us to study biomechanics. Ashleynicole11 (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I found an article called Is There Really a “Cushion Effect”?: A Biomechanical Investigation of Crash Injury Mechanisms in the Obese and it gives some insight on how obesity can effect the way the body moves upon impact and thus the injury produced. This study uses obese and non-obese cadavers. Ashleynicole11 (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The article, Incorporation of biomechanical child cadaver neck behaviour in a child model and injury prediction in vehicle frontal crash is a great source that goes into detail about how a child is affected in a car crash, and the correct way to position a child in the car. Ashleynicole11 (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Animal testing

The article, Live Animals in Car Crash Studies is a relevant article that has to do with why they used animals sometimes instead of human cadavers. and presents some of the ethical issues that have risen from animal testing. This article talks about what it was like in 1980, not today. Ashleynicole11 (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Crash test dummy

The lead does not focus on every topic being discussed, and does not give a brief summary of the entire article. I drafted a new lead section incorporating some new ideas that I could add to the article. Some of these ideas fall along the lines of going into depth of the more ethical aspects of human cadavers and animal testing. Also, the article talks a bunch about different dummies that are used and for different scenarios, and I would like to go more in depth about different cadavers that have been used. Also, I would like to make a section about how cadavers have been used to modify certain parts of a car to make them safer like the airbag, and seat belt. My lead: The Crash Test Dummy is widely used by researchers and automobile companies to predict the biomechanics, force, impact, and injury of a human being in an automobile crash. There are many specialized dummies used for obesity, children, rib impact, and spinal impact. THOR is a very advanced dummy because it uses sensors and has a more human like spine and pelvis. Special classes of dummies called Hybrid IIIs are designed to research the effects of frontal impacts, and are less useful in assessing the effects of other types of impact, such as side impacts, rear impacts, or rollovers. Hybrid IIIs use dummies that are meant to be a certain age, for example, a typical ten year old, six year old, three year old, and a grown man. There is a certain testing procedure that goes along with Hybrid IIIs to make sure that they have correct neck flexure, and to make sure that they will react to a crash the way a human would. Using cadavers for these topics of research are more realistic than using a dummy, but it arises many moral dilemmas. Going across a more moral ethics line, automobile companies have also used a human cadaver, a pig, and people have volunteered to be tested upon impact. There are studies that use obese cadavers, children cadavers, and how cadavers have been used to modify different parts of a car such as the seatbelt. Each new car that is made provides a different structural impact which provides the conclusion that cadavers and crash test dummies will be useful forever. A pig was used specifically for steering wheel impact because they have an internal structure similar to humans, and can be easily placed correctly and sit up right in the vehicle. Human cadavers along with animals are not personally able to give consent to certain methods and ways of using them during studies. Human Cadavers have went under trial to see if it would be a good idea to use them, and today animals are not widely used for testing. Ashleynicole11 (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crash test dummy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.offalyhistory.com/content/reading_resources/famous_people/ward_mary.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer Evaluation

I think my favorite part of your article addition is how evident it is that you really put forth a lot of effort and research. There is so much information in your article that you clearly had to search for, it is correctly cited and obviously not simply information you previously had known. If I had to make one suggestion for improvement to this article it would be to just look over everything and double check you aren’t using opinions. This may be more difficult than other articles because you focus a considerable amount of your lead section on the ethics behind using animals as test dummies, and a lot of ethics can be opinion based. You did a fairly good job simply stating what has been ruled in terms of the law, but I think I noticed a few sentences that could have used different words, making the article less opinion-based. Juliestein016 (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that this article was written well. From the lead section, I understood what the crash test dummy is. I think that the lead section is really important part in article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Many people will visit your article to find clear definition and some information related to crash test dummy. On that point, this article achieved ultimate goal of Wikipedia article. However, I found some shortcomings. Those are not big things. I think that there is one problem you should apply to the article. The problem is related to the table of contents. It means that your organization of article is simple. It was just organized through just 3 parts which are history, dummy evolution and popular culture. I think that you can separate testing procedure part from dummy evolution heading. In my case, testing procedure is one of important parts in your article. Probably, I will want to know procedure of testing when I understood what the crash test dummy is. You can make another heading to describe testing procedure. That would help people to understand procedure of dummy test. Many people don’t like read whole contents to find what they want to find. So, if you make another heading to describe procedure, your article will be clear and get richness of table content. Moreover, specialized dummies part also needs some changing. This is really great information. But, it doesn’t stand out in your paragraph. I think that It was located too bottom. I recommend you can separate this part as one of your heading. Other than that, article was written from a neutral point of view. References are reliable. Much visual information such as pictures helps me to understand it. PILJOONG KANG (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The hybrid III dummy for three, six and ten year olds has its implications, and does not provide the same physical outcome a human would encounter with a frontal crash. It was found that when testing the three year old hybrid III dummy, it showed that frontal crashes would most likely cause cervical spine injuries. When using data from the real world, the results did not match up to the hybrid III stimulation injuries. To get around this, THUMS was created which stands for Total Human Model of Safety. This model can be easily relatable to the human body anatomically especially focusing on the human spine upon impact. Clinical testing and experiments are more accurate than a dummy and reliable case studies can be implemented with this model. The model is based off of a male only, and mimics human tissues and organs. This model is accurate for males in the 50th percentile, and it can not easily relate to three year olds when dealing with neck and head injuries which are responsible for 57 percent of car crash fatalities. The use of NDTs or Neutral Density Targets were implemented inside Cadavers brains to focus on the impact and separation of the brain and skull. NDTs provided detailed observations and allowed researchers to look at a specific area of the brain. It also helped to establish and develop the FE model. To measure neck injuries for three year olds, the model FE was created. There are only a few FE models and it was utilized through sled tests. A real child's neck was interpreted and incorporated in to the FE model. Children in the three year old age group are more likely to have a fatality because it is the age where you are positioned differently from facing the rear to the front in certain areas and countries. A study was done on restraints and positioning of three year olds. It was concluded that being restrained and in the front seat have a lower fatality rate than children positioned in the back seat but not restrained. The safety results indicated that children should be placed in the back seat and restrained. It also suggests that restraints have a bigger impact on safety than seating positions. A lap belt used on children will not provide as much safety as it would for an adult, due to the flexibility of children. An adult seatbelt could do more harm to a child than good, which is why children should properly be utilizing the Child Restraint System instead. This system includes a booster seat and a proper belt that fits the childs' criteria including age, weight, height. Ashleynicole11 (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Crash test dummy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060328025602/http://www.salon.com/health/col/roac/1999/11/19/crash_test/index.html to http://www.salon.com/health/col/roac/1999/11/19/crash_test/index.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051125034009/http://archive.salon.com:80/health/col/roac/1999/11/19/crash_test/index1.html to http://archive.salon.com/health/col/roac/1999/11/19/crash_test/index1.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060220103359/http://www.edmunds.com:80/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=43819/pageNumber=1 to http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=43819/pageNumber=1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080515075428/http://www.ftss.com/historybook.cfm to http://www.ftss.com/historybook.cfm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040427025252/http://www.ncl.ac.uk:80/nsa/sam.html to http://www.ncl.ac.uk/nsa/sam.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930033541/http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=105394/pageNumber=1 to http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=105394/pageNumber=1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040821131734/http://www.computer.org:80/cga/cg2002/pdf/g6014.pdf?SMSESSION=NO to http://www.computer.org/cga/cg2002/pdf/g6014.pdf?SMSESSION=NO

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crash test dummy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150529182257/http://contrails.iit.edu/History/Roswell/index.html to http://contrails.iit.edu/history/Roswell/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Subjective

The sectioon on animal testing is highly subjective:

Although there was the objection of animal cruelty that arose, there was also the controversy of how they are similar to humans and can be used as a sufficient testing substitution for us.[12] The researchers did not end up stopping the use of baboons because of moral objections, but instead stopped because they had collected sufficient data. The moral inputs from other people and organizations were inconsistent, which caused implications when deciding to ban healthy animals from research testing. The animals were put under anesthesia, so there was no pain put upon them, but the aftereffects cannot justify this.[12] General Motors used animals for testing, and also suggested that they put the animals under anesthesia and then would kill the animals after completing the testing.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.182.1 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Humanetics

@Human Crash Safety, WikiDan61, and Drm310: Since VRT permission has been confirmed for the text, I have restored it to the article. I will leave it to others to discuss the appropriateness of tone/focus/COI, but copyright is no longer an issue. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

With due appreciation to VernoWhitney for clearing up the copyright violation issue, the material is still unsourced (other than to the Humanetics website, which cannot be considered a reliable source in this matter). The material in question is also too heavily focused on the history of the Humanetics rather than the history of the industry as a whole. I disagree with the material's inclusion, regardless of its copyright status. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Female crash test dummy

Section Dummy evolution talks about female dummies used since 1976 and then at the end of the section there is subsection, where is says that first female crash test dummy was used in year 2023. Reference for this claim is some very short news article in swedish language, and AFAIK using google translate it contains no relevant infomation, just this simple claim. DJVibrejtr (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)