Quote:
Originally Posted by v.anand ...The problem I see here is in Government regulations. Cars in Europe and US have to comply with various safety norms to be sold there whereas a place which boasts the highest deaths due to road accidents don't have any. Hence manufacturers try and save costs here big time. |
Bingo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DicKy +100 to that dude,
Was looking forward to post the same thing,this matter seems to be debated endlessly.When Japanese companies can put the correct configurations in LHD cars then why not the Euros do it here?
When imported cars need to have RHD controld stalks then why cars manufactured here are left from the rules.
Also S.Korea is a LHD market,then i don't see any Hyundai's with LHD control stalks in India. |
As v.anand has correctly pointed out, it is simply due to lack of any mandates by the government authorities (ARAI, perhaps?) about how this is SUPPOSED TO BE.
We are all saying "Ideally, the indicator stalk should be on the right and the wiper stalk on the left." But pray, where is the RULE that states this? Nowhere. Therefore, the car-buyer is left to the cost-cutting whims and fancies of the manufacturer. Today, they put the stalks on whichever side suits their balance sheets. Tomorrow, they might even do away with stalks altogether and put simple buttons on the dashboard, since our regulatory authorities are silent about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmohitg Precisely! The real issue here is not whether you can get used to the set up or not. We had no problems in driving non power steering cars until a decade ago. But now everyone will agree that power steering makes your life easy and is a better option. That doesnt mean one cannot drive without a power steering now. Similarly getting used to the stalks is a forced choice. Ideally speaking in a RHD your left hand should be free to shift gears ONLY (apart from holding the steering at other times).
And I repeat my query to support my view. Are there any LHD cars in EUROPE with the RHD set up of the stalks? If not then there must be a reason behind it. |
My guess is, European rules DICTATE that the wiper stalk should be on the right and the indicator stalk should be on the left, and hence ANY manufacturer who wants a sell any car in the European market has to make it that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lancer_rit While some of the OP's points are debatable, and also a few are design flaws while others maybe just cost-cutting, and a few others neither, I have to say this argument about indicator stalks is completely misguided from folks who drive cars that have the "LHD" orientation.
Don't get me wrong, I have driven the Matiz for years with the 'LHD' configuration, and done it fine, however it is quite simple to me:
If the indicators are on the right side in a RHD car, I can use my right hand on the steering to operate them, and my right hand is always on my steering. Indicator usage is a frequent one in city drives (if you follow the rules). The left hand on the other hand has to get off the wheel in a RHD MT car to change gears, and less frequently to apply the hand brake. So, I do believe, the indicators must be on right side on RHD car, as they must be on the left side for LHD car.
Otherwise, show me non-UK Euro manufacturer who has placed the indicator on the right side for a LHD car !
I believe, not changing the indicator and wiper stalk positions from a LHD car to a RHD car is plain and simple "cost cutting". If Merc does it, then it still remains cost cutting!
On a lighter note, a German says LHD is the right way to drive (just that it happens to be on the left side) ;-) |
A very valid argument. As I said above, I believe it is mandatory for any car being sold in Europe to have the stalks placed in those positions (indicators on the left, wipers on the right). They cannot be sold otherwise. Not to mention that Europeans by nature are a very picky bunch, who will probably not buy a car with the stalks "wrongly" placed, even though everything else fits the bill.
Regarding the rear windows, I feel it is simply a design "subject", and not a "flaw". If the designer could design the door in such a way that the wheel arch does not come in the way of the collapsing window, I'm sure he would be happy to offer a window that goes all the way down. After all, it doesn't require any additional engineering to make the window roll down completely, provided the path exists.
However, most sedans today come with rear doors which are "curved" at the bottom to accomodate the wheel arch, and hence the window cannot roll down completely. In such a case, providing the quarter glass (which allows the glass to roll down completely) is upto the designer. Some cars have it, some don't. It cannot be mandated, its all about "popular" choice. And I believe most buyers wouldn't want one, as it hampers the view.
Besides, in some cases, it would not be possible to add a quarter glass, as the quarter glass itself would end up consuming more than half of the available space, reducing the rolling glass to a "ticket window". Then, it's better to have a half-rolling glass than a fixed quarter glass.
The single reversing lamp is again a glaring case of "lack of mandate". Even assuming that the light is meant to be a warning light and not an illuminating device, I don't see the point in having it on ONE SIDE of the vehicle.
#1: What if the side of the reversing vehicle having the light is obstructed in such a way (by a wall or vehicle, lets say) that an approaching person can't see it? Ditto for the single fog lamp.
#2: Even if an approaching person were to see the lamp in the dark, how can that person judge the location of the vehicle w.r.t the lamp? Agreed, we as enthusiasts know that most cars have it on the right, but given the abysmal levels of driver education and awareness in this country, how many people know this? 2 reverse lamps make it amply clear where exactly the vehicle is, and where its going.
WE NEED TWO FOG LAMPS AND TWO REVERSE LAMPS. Period.
Manufacturers can be so stingy. My neighbor owns a Tata Indica Turbo, in which only reverse lamp is provided. This, inspite of the fact that the other tail lamp housing is designed symetrically, with a reverse lamp nacelle in it (unlike Logan and some other cars). Only it has no bulb. Put in the bulb, and it works. Aww c'mon, a 5-rupee bulb on a 4.5 lakh rupee car, is that reeeeaaaalllly saving cost? Gimme a break. And please don't give me that story about the airline and the humble olive. Companies like Tata Motors have bigger issues to think about in terms of cost-cutting, before coming to the humble 5-rupee bulb. Penny wise and pound foolish, I say.
NOTE: I find the powerful pair of reverse lamps on my 2004 WagonR to be quite handy while reversing in pitch darkness. The amount of illumination they provide is fantastic, and serves as a very important visual aid, especially for new drivers who always have problems reversing, more so in the dark.
Therefore, I feel that it should be made mandatory by our govt. that vehicles should come with 2 reverse lamps which provide proper illumination, and not just serve as a "warning". Just "warning" lights are fine in developed countries, where sufficient ambient light and indication is provided and maintained by the government in the form of street lighting and fluorescent warning signage.
The less said about vital safety features like the single ORVM, ABS and airbags, the better. Our great Indian MV rules originated in the stone age, and have stayed there since.