Talk:Crash test dummy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dummy Evolution quirks & clarifications 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  So what kind of and measurements do Dummies Make? 

message: I think a merge would be good.--gordonrox24 (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge with popular culture article 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: What's the point here? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 17:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human cadavers are still being used in tests 

message: 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)
thread_title: Testing section

message: 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)
thread_title: The Crash Symbol

message: 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)
thread_title: Cadaver testing

message: 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)
thread_title: Animal testing

message: 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)
thread_title: Crash test dummy

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Peer Evaluation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Subjective 

message: 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)
replies: text: With due appreciation to  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. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanetics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Female crash test dummy