Editing Crash test dummy (section)

== History ==

On August 31, 1869, [[Mary Ward (scientist)|Mary Ward]] became the first recorded victim of an [[automobile accident]]; the car involved was steam-powered ([[Karl Benz]] did not invent the gasoline-powered automobile until 1886). Ward, of [[Parsonstown, Ireland]], was thrown out of a motor vehicle and killed.<ref name="OHAS">{{cite web|url=http://www.offalyhistory.com/content/reading_resources/famous_people/ward_mary.htm |title=Mary Ward 1827–1869 |work=Famous Offaly People |publisher=Offaly Historical & Archaeological Society |access-date=April 25, 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927051623/http://www.offalyhistory.com/content/reading_resources/famous_people/ward_mary.htm |archive-date=September 27, 2007 }}</ref>  Thirty years later, on September 13, 1899, [[Death of Henry H. Bliss|Henry Bliss]] became [[North America]]'s first motor vehicle fatality when hit while stepping off a [[New York City]] [[tram|trolley]]. 
The need for a means of analyzing and mitigating the effects of motor vehicle accidents on humans was felt soon after commercial production of automobiles began in the late 1890s, and by the 1930s, when the automobile became a common part of daily life and the number of motor vehicle deaths were rising. Death rates had surpassed 15.6 fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles continue to climb. (Currently, according to the [[CDC]], each year approximately 1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/global-road-safety/index.html | title=Road Traffic Injuries and Deaths—A Global Problem | work=Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | date=14 December 2020 }}</ref>).

In 1930 cars had [[dashboard]]s of rigid metal, non-collapsible steering columns, and protruding knobs, buttons, and levers. Without seat belts, passengers in a frontal collision could be hurled against the interior of the automobile or through the [[windshield]]. The vehicle body itself was rigid, and impact forces were transmitted directly to the vehicle occupants. As late as the 1950s, [[List of automobile manufacturers|car manufacturers]] were on public record as saying that vehicle accidents simply could not be made survivable because the forces in a crash were too great.{{Citation needed|date=February 2010}}

===Cadaver testing===
[[File:B11510P002.jpg|thumb|Cadaver used during a frontal impact test.]]
[[Detroit]]'s [[Wayne State University]] was the first to begin serious work on collecting data on the effects of high-speed collisions on the human body. In the late 1930s there was no reliable data on how the human body responds to the sudden, violent forces acting on it in an automobile accident. Furthermore, no effective tools existed to measure such responses.
[[Biomechanics]] was a field barely in its infancy. It was therefore necessary to employ two types of test subjects in order to develop initial data sets.

The first test subjects were human [[cadaver]]s. They were used to obtain fundamental information about the human body's ability to withstand the crushing and tearing forces typically experienced in a high-speed accident. To such an end, steel [[ball bearing]]s were dropped on [[human skull|skulls]], and bodies were dumped down unused [[elevator]] shafts onto steel plates. Cadavers fitted with crude [[accelerometer]]s were strapped into automobiles and subjected to head-on collisions and vehicle rollovers.

Albert King's 1995 ''Journal of Trauma'' article, "Humanitarian Benefits of Cadaver Research on Injury Prevention", clearly states the value in human lives saved as a result of cadaver research. King's calculations indicate that as a result of design changes implemented up to 1987, cadaver research since saved 8,500 lives annually.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=King |first1=Albert I. |last2=Viano |first2=David C. |last3=Mizeres |first3=Nicholas |last4=States |first4=John D. |title=Humanitarian Benefits of Cadaver Research on Injury Prevention |journal=The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care |date=April 1995 |volume=38 |issue=4 |pages=564–569 |doi=10.1097/00005373-199504000-00016 |pmid=7723096 }}</ref> He notes that for every cadaver used, each year 61 people survive due to wearing [[seat belt]]s, 147 live due to [[air bag]]s, and 68 survive windshield impact.

However, work with cadavers presented almost as many problems as it resolved. Not only were there the [[morals|moral]] and [[ethics|ethical]] issues related to working with the dead, but there were also research concerns. The majority of cadavers available were older adult males who had died non-violent deaths; they did not represent a [[demography|demographic]] cross-section of accident victims. Deceased accident victims could not be employed because any data that might be collected from such experimental subjects would be compromised by the cadaver's previous injuries. Since no two cadavers are the same, and since any specific part of a cadaver could only be used once, it was extremely difficult to achieve reliable comparison data. In addition, child cadavers were not only difficult to obtain, but both legal and [[public opinion]] made them effectively unusable. Moreover, as crash testing became more routine, suitable cadavers became increasingly scarce. As a result, [[biometric]] data were limited in extent and skewed toward the older males.

Very little attention has been paid to obesity and car crash studies, and it is hard to obtain an obese dummy for the experiment. Instead, human cadavers were used. Body weight is a vital factor when it comes to automobile accidents, and body mass is distributed differently in an obese person versus a non-obese person.<ref name="cushion" /> At the University of Michigan, obese cadavers were tested and compared to non-obese cadavers, and they found that the obese cadavers had more injuries in their lower extremities. The researchers also suggested that an obese person could be protected by their fat almost causing a "cushioning effect."<ref name="cushion">{{cite journal |last1=Kent |first1=Richard W. |last2=Forman |first2=Jason L. |last3=Bostrom |first3=Ola |title=Is There Really a 'Cushion Effect'?: A Biomechanical Investigation of Crash Injury Mechanisms in the Obese |journal=Obesity |date=April 2010 |volume=18 |issue=4 |pages=749–753 |doi=10.1038/oby.2009.315 |pmid=19798067 |s2cid=20464616 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

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 after the crash stimulation. It also helped to establish and develop the Finite Element model, initially developed to measure neck injuries for three-year-olds. A real child's neck was interpreted and incorporated into the FE model. FE models of the human head have become increasingly more important to the study of head injury.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Warren N.|first=Hardy|date=2007|title=A Study of the Response of the Human Cadaver Head to Impact|pmc=2474809|journal=Stapp Car Crash|series=SAE Technical Paper Series |pmid=18278591|ref=NCBI|volume=51|pages=17–80|doi=10.4271/2007-22-0002 }}</ref>

=== Volunteer testing ===
[[File:Rocket sled track.jpg|thumb|[[John Stapp|Colonel Stapp]] riding a rocket sled at [[Edwards Air Force Base]]]]
Some researchers took it upon themselves to serve as crash test dummies. In 1954, [[United States Air Force|USAF]] Colonel [[John Stapp|John Paul Stapp]] was propelled to over 1000&nbsp;km/h on a [[rocket sled]] and stopped in 1.4 seconds.<ref>[http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:60302597&ctrlInfo=Round19%3AMode19a%3ADocG%3AResult&ao= 'Fastest Man on Earth,' Col. John Paul Stapp, Dies at 89]{{Dead link|date=June 2016}} (March 1, 2000). Retrieved April 18, 2006.</ref> [[Lawrence Patrick]], then a professor at Wayne State University, endured some 400 rides on a rocket sled in order to test the effects of rapid deceleration on the human body. He and his students allowed themselves to be hit in the chest with heavy metal [[pendulum]]s, impacted in the face by pneumatically driven rotary hammers, and sprayed with shattered glass to simulate window implosion.<ref>Roach, Mary (November 19, 1999). [http://www.salon.com/health/col/roac/1999/11/19/crash_test/index.html I was a human crash-test dummy] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060328025602/http://www.salon.com/health/col/roac/1999/11/19/crash_test/index.html |date=March 28, 2006}}. Salon.com. Retrieved November 29, 2007.</ref> While admitting that it made him "a little sore", Patrick has said that the research he and his students conducted was seminal in developing [[mathematical model]]s against which further research could be compared. While data from live testing was valuable, human subjects could not withstand tests that exceeded a certain degree of physical injury. To gather information about the causes and prevention of injuries and fatalities would require a different kind of test subject.

=== Animal testing ===
By the mid-1950s, the bulk of the information cadaver testing could provide had been collected. It was also necessary to collect data on accident survivability, research for which cadavers were woefully inadequate. In concert with the shortage of cadavers, this need forced researchers to seek other models. A description by [[Mary Roach]] of the ''Eighth Stapp Car Crash and Field Demonstration Conference'' shows the direction in which research had begun to move. "We saw [[chimpanzee]]s riding rocket sleds, a [[bear]] on an impact swing...We observed a [[pig]], [[anesthesia|anesthetized]] and placed in a sitting position on the swing in the harness, crashed into a deep-dish steering wheel at about 10 mph."<ref>[http://archive.salon.com/health/col/roac/1999/11/19/crash_test/index1.html I was a human crash-test dummy] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051125034009/http://archive.salon.com/health/col/roac/1999/11/19/crash_test/index1.html |date=November 25, 2005}} (November 19, 1999).</ref>

One important research objective that could not be achieved with either cadavers or live humans was a means of reducing the injuries caused by [[impalement]] on the [[steering column]]. By 1964, over a million fatalities resulting from [[steering wheel]] impact had been recorded, a significant percentage of all fatalities; the introduction by [[General Motors]] in the early 1960s of the collapsible steering column reduced the risk of steering-wheel death by fifty percent.

Pigs were used for steering wheel impacts and other cabin collisions because they have an internal structure similar to humans, and can be easily placed correctly via sitting upright in the vehicle.<ref name="live animals"/> The ability to sit upright was an important requirement for test animals so that another common fatal injury among human victims, [[decapitation]], could be studied. Additionally, it was important for researchers to be able to determine to what extent cabin design needed to be modified to ensure optimal survival circumstances. For instance, a [[dashboard]] with too little padding or padding that was too stiff or too soft would not significantly reduce head injury over a dash with no padding at all. While knobs, levers, and buttons are essential in the operation of a vehicle, it was essential to determine which design modifications would best ensure that these elements did not tear or puncture victims in a crash. [[Rear-view mirror]] impact is a significant occurrence in a [[Traffic collision|frontal collision]]: How should a mirror be built so that it is rigid enough to perform its task, yet of low injury risk if struck?

While work with cadavers had aroused some opposition, primarily from religious institutions, it was grudgingly accepted because the dead, being dead, felt no [[pain]], and the indignity of their situations was directly related to easing the pain of the living. Animal research, on the other hand, aroused much greater passion. Animal rights groups such as the [[American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals]] (ASPCA) were vehement in their protest, and while researchers such as Patrick supported animal testing because of its ability to produce reliable, applicable data, there was nonetheless a strong ethical unease about this process. Researchers at the University of Virginia have to call the cadaver's family and tell them what they are using their loved one for, after getting consent from the family. This seems to lessen ethical dilemmas in contrast to animal testing, because there is no sufficient way to get consent to use an animal.<ref name="LA Times">{{Cite news|last1=Marshall|first1=Tyler|title=Auto Safety Crash Testing Ignites Furor : Germany: The program uses human bodies. U.S. tests using cadavers at 3 universities are disclosed.|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-11-25-mn-60691-story.html|access-date=15 February 2016|work=Los Angeles Times|date=25 November 1993}}</ref>

Although animal test data were still more easily obtained than cadaver data, the anatomical differences between animals and people and the difficulty of employing adequate internal instrumentation limited their usefulness. Animal testing is no longer practiced by any of the major automobile makers; General Motors discontinued live testing in 1993 and other manufacturers followed suit shortly thereafter.

In 1980, animals such as bears and pigs were tested in car crash simulations. This led to moral dilemmas and was not the first time that animals were used in car crashes. In 1978, The [[University of Michigan]] Highway Safety Research Institute used baboons as a substitute for human test subjects in car crashes. 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.<ref name="live animals" /> 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.<ref name="live animals">{{cite journal |last1=Heneson |first1=Nancy |title=Live Animals in Car Crash Studies |journal=International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems |date=1980 |volume=1 |issue=14 |pages=214–217 |url=https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_arte/19/ }}</ref> 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.<ref name="new york">{{Cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/28/us/19000-.html | title=Animals Killed in Automotive Crash Tests | work=[[The New York Times]] | date=September 28, 1991 | access-date=26 March 2016}}</ref>

Although the University of Michigan Highway Safety Research Institute did get bad publicity, it was suggested that this is not the reason why they stopped using baboons. The University of Michigan's mission was to create safer cars for human use. In order to reach this goal, research and testing is inevitable. The cruelty and the moral dilemmas of animal testing did not trump researchers still using them as subjects. They reasoned that biomechanics data are needed for an experiment like this, which will lead to safer cars.<ref name="live animals" /> Years later, animal testing ceased and instead an instrumented dummy was created as a replacement. In 1978, animals were their only subjects that could be a reliable substitution for the human being. The disadvantage, though, to using an instrumented dummy or a human cadaver, is that the tissue is not alive and will not elicit the same response as a live animal.<ref name="live animals" /> By 1991, the use of animals in vehicle collision tests was in decline because of advances in computers and technology.<ref name="new york" /> It is difficult to use cadavers instead of animals because of human rights, and it is difficult to obtain permission from the families of the deceased. Consent for a research and testing can occur only if the person responsible for giving consent is mentally competent and comprehends the research and testing procedures fully.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Chung|first1=Christine S.|last2=Lehmann|first2=Lisa Soleymani|title=Informed Consent and the Process of Cadaver Donation|journal=Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine|date=August 2002|volume=126|issue=8|pages=964–968|url=http://www.archivesofpathology.org/doi/pdf/10.1043/0003-9985(2002)126%3C0964:ICATPO%3E2.0.CO%3B2|access-date=24 April 2016|doi=10.5858/2002-126-0964-ICATPO|pmid=12171497|url-access=subscription}}</ref>