Female crash fatality risk relative to males for similar physical impacts

Figures & data

Table 1. Driver model coefficients.

Response Variable: Fatal1 (Driver Fatality), 146,895 fatal, 108,671 survived
Parameter	Estimate	Standard Error	Wald Chi-Square
Intercept	0.2957	0.015	389.1
AGE1	0.0366	0.000648	3190.9
AGE3	−0.0316	0.000623	2566.3
FEM1	0.2871	0.012	571.6
FEM3	−0.2872	0.0103	774.2
AGE1_35	0.00016	0.000018	78.9
AGE3_35	−0.0004	0.000018	522.8
FEM1_35	−0.0096	0.000662	210.5
FEM3_35	0.00404	0.000594	46.3

Note: All estimates have 1 degree of freedom and p < 0.0001.

Table 2. Right-front passenger model coefficients.

Response Variable: Fatal3 (RF Passenger Fatality), 154,565 fatal, 101,001 survived
Parameter	Estimate	Standard Error	Wald Chi-Square
Intercept	0.2599	0.0151	295.0
AGE1	−0.0335	0.000645	2700.4
AGE3	0.0342	0.000643	2831.0
FEM1	−0.2952	0.0119	610.5
FEM3	0.3181	0.0103	952.5
AGE1_35	−0.00021	0.000019	118.5
AGE3_35	0.000445	0.00002	498.7
FEM1_35	0.00895	0.00069	168.4
FEM3_35	−0.00517	0.000664	60.7

Note: All estimates have 1 degree of freedom and p < 0.0001.

Figure 1. Fatality risk difference for females (16 to 96 years old) relative to males by MY (Cars + LTVs).

Table 3. Estimated fatality risk difference for females (16 to 96 years old) relative to males grouped by MY of vehicles (Cars + LTVs) and occupant belt use.

	Unbelted		Belted		All (Unbelted + Belted)
MYs	Drivers & RFP	Number of Cases	Drivers & RFP	Number of Cases	Drivers & RFP	Number of Cases
1960–1999	20.3 ± 1.8	159,706	19.4 ± 2.8	54,274	19.9 ± 1.3	213,980
2000–2020	14.4 ± 4.6	12,085	7.1 ± 2.6	29,501	9.4 ± 2.2	41,586
1960–2009	19.9 ± 1.7	170,553	15.6 ± 2.0	77,906	18.3 ± 1.2	248,459
2010–2020	8.0 ± 14.0	1,238	5.8 ± 6.5	5,869	6.3 ± 5.4	7,107
1980–1989	21.8 ± 2.7	52,136	19.6 ± 4.9	22,553	21.3 ± 2.5	74,689
1990–1999	16.9 ± 3.8	20,534	18.3 ± 2.9	27,146	17.5 ± 2.3	47,680

Note: The estimates highlighted in bold indicate that they are statistically significant.

Table 4. Comparison of fatality risk difference for females (16 to 96 years old) relative to males between MYs of vehicles (Cars + LTVs) grouped by occupant belt use.

Comparison of MYs	Unbelted	Belted	All (Unbelted + Belted)
2010–2020 vs. 1960–2009	−11.9 ± 14.1	−9.8 ± 6.7	−12.0 ± 5.5
2010–2020 vs. 1960–1999	−12.3 ± 14.2	−13.6 ± 7.0	−13.6 ± 5.6
2010–2020 vs. 1980–1989	−13.8 ± 14.3	−13.8 ± 8.1	−15.0 ± 6.0
2010–2020 vs. 1990–1999	−8.9 ± 14.6	−12.5 ± 7.1	−11.2 ± 5.9
2000–2020 vs. 1960–1999	−5.9 ± 4.9	−12.3 ± 3.8	−10.6 ± 2.5
2000–2020 vs. 1980–1989	−7.4 ± 5.4	−12.5 ± 5.6	−12.0 ± 3.3
2000–2020 vs. 1990–1999	−2.5 ± 6.0	−11.2 ± 3.9	−8.2 ± 3.2

Note: The estimates highlighted in bold indicate that they are statistically significant. Comparison estimates were computed using the unrounded estimates in each model year group. Differences between groups may be statistically significant even if groups taken individually are not statistically significant.

Figure 2. Fatality risk difference for females (16 to 96 years old) relative to males by occupant protection (Cars, LTVs and Cars + LTVs). Note: The description of generation of occupants (Gen1-Gen8 for Cars and Gen1-Gen5 for LTVs and Cars + LTVs) are described in Table A1 in the Supplementary Information.

Table 5. Estimated fatality risk difference for females (16 to 96 years old) relative to males grouped by occupant protection types.

Occupant Protection Types for Cars + LTVs	Drivers & RFP	Number of Cases
Unbelted without air bags	20.8 ± 2.0	137,036
Belted without air bags	21.0 ± 3.5	36,598
Unbelted with dual air bags	14.4 ± 3.5	22,328
Belted with dual air bags	9.7 ± 2.1	45,281
Belted with dual air bags, pretensioners and load limiters	5.8 ± 3.8	17,978

Note: The estimates highlighted in bold indicate that they are statistically significant.

Table 6. Comparison of fatality risk difference for females (16 to 96 years old) relative to males between occupant protection types.

Comparison of Occupant Protection Types	Drivers and RFP
Unbelted with dual air bags vs. Unbelted without air bags	−6.4 ± 4.0
Belted with dual air bags vs. Belted without air bags	−11.3 ± 4.1
Belted with dual air bags, pretensioners and load limiters vs. Belted without air bags	−15.2 ± 5.2

Note: The estimates highlighted in bold indicate that they are statistically significant. Comparison estimates were computed using the unrounded estimates in each occupant protection type. Differences between groups may be statistically significant even if groups taken individually are not statistically significant.