The transportation department has unveiled a first crash test dummy in the US modeled specifically on female anatomy, a move officials say is meant to close decades of safety gaps in vehicle testing.

Sean Duffy, the US transportation secretary, unveiled the THOR-05F, an advanced female design for a crash-test dummy with upgraded technical specifications. According to the transportation department, the dummy will be incorporated into federal vehicle crash testing once a final rule is published.

Although men make up the majority of annual car-crash victims, women are more likely to die in collisions of comparable severity. Women are also 73% more likely than men to sustain serious injuries in a crash, according to studies. In addition, they face a higher risk of specific trauma, including pelvis and liver injuries.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    In that case the normal thing to do is to lead with
    Narrator: …

    Not to make a false quote.
    Pretty moronic that I’m downvoted for pointing out it’s not actually a quote of the article.

    It doesn’t matter if it’s obvious to the majority, it’s the ones it’s NOT obvious to that count.

    • kelpie_is_trying@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      I hear you and basically agree*~. Tone can be tough to manage on either end.

      I think the downvotes are also a tonal thing. People are taking you as being overly-critical, though Im pretty youre genuinely trying to be helpful. People, am I right?

      Edit: had a half-thought or so more on the topic. Felt like sharing.

      *~ We have tools that help us distinguish tone and meaning, but they are only helpful when people actually understand and use them appropriately. I am of the camp that language, syntax, and the like are all as mercurial as the creatures dealing in them. This means that definitions and use-cases will inevitably change over time, sometimes in ways that are useful and sometimes in ways that are not. I am the type inclined toward embracing this change as it simply seems too inevitable to deny, though I do sincerely agree that it adds fresh layers of potential confusion with each new iteration and off-shoot.

      Im not trying to say anyone should give up on upholding literary standards, but I do feel strongly that this is a losing battle in almost all ways. Especially so after the advent of new media. Language and culture grow in their distinction and breadth at an almost equal rate, so having long-distance communication splinter culture so thoroughly has and will continue to alter how we use language at a similar pace. It has been said by some people more well informed than myself that we are not ready for the changes our modern innovations are ushering in, and with that thought I can not find any good reason to disagree.

    • clgoh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      The tone made it very obvious it was not a real quote.

      Nothing else was needed.

      • stephen01king@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Tone is not something that everyone can pick up equally. If you have an option to make it clearer, why are you people so determined that it mustn’t be changed?

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        That presumes people have read the article, and can see the difference in tone.
        As a Dane there would be nothing wrong in having a similar tone in an article here. The same goes for many other countries.
        Not everything is USA or Anglo-style body shame double standards, where saying boop makes things 21+.
        And requires parental warnings more than showing people killing each other.
        Could as easily have been a tongue in cheek comment.