The Evolution of Crash Test Dummies: Ensuring Road Safety with Chris O’Connor

Hi and welcome everyone to the reimagined Mobility Podcast series. I'm here with Chris O'Connor from Humanetics. Chris, thanks for joining us as we talk about reimagining mobility. The work you guys are doing is a perfect area that very few people talk about, often in the background, but nonetheless super important. Chris, could you give us a little bit of a background? Who are you, what is the company you're currently leading, and what are you guys doing? Then let's jump in and talk about reimagining mobility together.

Certainly, thanks, Stephan. It's great to be here on your podcast. Congratulations on your recent victories in basketball. Humanetics may not be known by everyone, but everyone certainly knows what a crash test dummy is. It's iconic and very noticeable—whether you're three years old or 83 years old, you know what a crash test dummy is. It’s iconic around safety and around Humanetics and what we're all about. My background—I’m an engineer, and I’m the president and CEO of Humanetics. It drives our passion at Humanetics around saving lives and making a difference. This is something we’re super excited about; it doesn’t always get enough attention, and unfortunately, safety itself doesn’t get enough attention. If we look at fatality rates and injuries around the world and in the US, it should be absolutely unacceptable, yet we continue to live with this type of fatality rate as if it's expected. There's more we can do.

You talked about the crash test dummies, right? Everyone has seen one to some degree, whether in movies, advertisements, or somewhere else. But Chris, can you tell us how crash test dummies have evolved over the last five or ten years, and then how they're going to change over the next ten years as we reimagine mobility?

Great question. Humanetics has a long history. The first crash test dummy was made in 1952 and wasn't even used for automobiles but for Air Force ejection seats to protect pilots. Over time, they developed, thanks to Sam Alderson, who started Alderson Research Labs, which eventually became Humanetics. Working with the Air Force, Alderson created dummies as they realized they were losing more pilots in car accidents than in aircraft accidents. The early dummies were simple and based on mass and size, evolving over time. By the 1980s, the iconic Hybrid III family of dummies emerged, initially with 10-30 sensors at most. Today, our most advanced crash test dummies are anatomically and biofidelically correct, outfitted with up to 150 sensors. Now we can detect if you’ve bruised something, torn a ligament, or broken a bone. The accuracy is incredibly advanced, and with each problem we solve, new ones arise. For example, it started with preventing people from going through windshields; now, with seatbelts and airbags, we’re focused on other areas.

Simulation and digital twins frequently come up in discussions about reimagining mobility. You mentioned having more sensors and safety technologies now. Is using digital twins of crash test dummies, or drivers, already part of your work?

Absolutely, we’re right in the middle of that. However, we’re not moving fast enough. When you have 1.3 million fatalities globally and nearly 43,000 in the US, that’s like a 747 crashing weekly. Yet, we accept it on the roads, while we’d stop air traffic immediately. The crash test dummy lets us test in ways that better replicate real crashes. These dummies are based on data from actual injuries reported by hospitals and cadaver tests, creating simulations that let us test virtually endless scenarios. There's also finite element modeling (FEM) directly correlating to crash test dummies. Humanetics offers these models, allowing us to create accurate simulations. We also have the world’s largest human body size database, vital for early design in ensuring sightlines, ergonomics, and safety features.

Fascinating! I didn't realize how much goes into all of this. You also mentioned tailoring for different body types and sizes—can even factors like wearing a ski jacket or shoes affect the outcomes? How far does this customization go?

Hopefully, we’ll get that detailed someday. As engineers, we focus on the biggest problems first. Traditionally, crash test dummies were designed around a 1970s male physique, but our population has changed in size and shape due to better food and medicine. And there’s a real gender disparity in crash outcomes: women are more likely to be injured or die in the same crash scenario, even when belted. BMI and age also play roles, as larger, older, or higher-BMI individuals face higher risks. To address these differences, we need to evolve our testing methods, possibly with simulations, though traceable back to physical tests to ensure reliability. Dieselgate showed us that simulation alone isn’t enough; real-world testing catches production variables like materials, workmanship, and more.

It sounds like we’re not ready to abandon physical testing anytime soon, despite advances in simulation. So, how involved are you guys in early vehicle development? I picture testing happening at the end, but is Humanetics more integrated at the start?

Testing traditionally came later, but that’s not the case anymore. Now, we’re involved from the start. With FEM and human body models, safety is integrated into every design phase. Our ergonomics platform, the largest globally, now includes safety data, enabling designers to predict potential safety issues before physical testing. By incorporating safety in the design phase, we’re cutting weeks or months off development time. Subsystems like airbags, seat belts, seats, and headliners are all tested individually, and FEM is used for early simulation across different body sizes and crash standards.

In the context of Vision Zero and the push for zero fatalities, where do you see ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems) fitting in? Some say ADAS systems might even be increasing risks.

Yes, ADAS and autonomous systems are great but can also create distractions and give a false sense of security. We've seen US fatality rates rise by 30% in the last ten years despite having the safest cars and more ADAS systems. Some blame distractions like phones or COVID, but it’s clear that distraction isn’t the only issue. We can’t just rely on technology alone, as active safety measures can’t prevent every accident. This is why we need to continue focusing on passive safety to protect everyone, regardless of the driving scenario or distractions.

That makes sense; it's about creating a balance between active and passive safety. Out of curiosity, what kind of car do you see yourself buying next, and what factors would you consider?

People often ask me about the safest car, but it depends on the type of crash you’re most likely to experience. Statistics show that smaller cars are at a higher risk than larger cars in certain crashes. When my kids started driving, I had them in our largest, newest car because of its added mass and safety features. While I’m a fan of electrification, adding mass could be a challenge since roads and guardrails aren’t built for heavier EVs. So at the end of the day, you still can't beat physics; a heavier car generally provides more protection.

I really appreciate all your insights, Chris. This has been incredibly educational, especially seeing the impact of new technology on vehicle safety. Thanks so much for joining us today!

It’s my pleasure. At Humanetics, we’re passionate about saving lives, and reducing fatalities from 42,795 down to 40,000, or even further, is our purpose. It’s not just a mission, it’s our obligation. Thank you so much for having me on.