[shankar.balan]

Indian Government and Bureaucracy are like a bunch of Ostriches. They have their heads perpetually buried in the sand.

A more complete, incompetent set of nincompoops have yet to be born into this world.

[gsb350]

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

Indian Government and Bureaucracy are like a bunch of Ostriches. They have their heads perpetually buried in the sand.

A more complete, incompetent set of nincompoops have yet to be born into this world.

Shankar i agree with you that the Indian Government and Bureaucracy are like a bunch of Ostriches. May be a bit off topic but my only other question is when they will wake up on the safety Norms the NCAP after knowing that the latest cars produced like the Maruti Swift,800, Tata Nano, Hyundai i10 and Datsun Go have failed the test and yet they are being sold. So Mr. Government you are more concerned regarding the environment and least for the lives of the people.

[su1978]

Government comprises mostly of people who have cleared civil service exams and go on to become the least intellectual class of society . they work hard to clear the exams with the aspiration and thought to change the society, but in actual life, they are not more than a clerk to the illiterate leaders. Hence, the government is no more than an ostritch. All said and done, there needs to be a drastic change in the government rules for 15 years old vehicles. The condition of vehicle including tyres, the pollution level, the paint quality, interiors, and last but not the least, the security features etc should also be taken into account.

[hellmet]

For most vehicles 15 years is nothing. Our '98 Maruti 800 comes out with flying colors everytime it is tested for pollution, and it's not like we really take too much care of it either. Thankfully, this stupid law (who is Green Tribunal, btw?) isn't in Hyderabad, and we're allowed to renew registration for older vehicles for 5 year periods.

Given how rampantly autos and buses pollute in India without a damn, I'd say this is a very very unfair ban.

[ashphil]

So there is no difference between a nano and a Rolls. Both must be scrapped as soon as they are 15 years of age! A middle class family must suppress any urge to buy a higher model and stick to basic models only so that they may lessen their financial burden in the long run. A private vehicle which covers a few thousand kilometres every year must, under this draconian law, be retired at the same time as a public transport vehicle which pollutes a thousand times more! This is even more ridiculous than the judgement passed on film usage on car windows! Seriously , is there anyone out there who thinks that this ruling can be implemented ?
regards,
Ashok

[anjan_c2007]

The National Green Tribunal order is blasphemous for the Vintage and Classic automobiles and the not so older ones too. Even the rarer and later Indian and imported classics will fall prey to the ruling that does no distinction between any category of cars, but hits out at private ownership surviving beyond 15 years.

And just more than a year back, the Union Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi vide its G.R. has permitted imports of pre-1950's cars and bikes from abroad, to augment our vintage and classic population. So it is evident that the left and right hands of the same entity are at odds with one another.

Coming to the just 15 years plus category of mass produced automobiles, most of the economically backward sections are owners of older 10 or 15 or 20 year old ones. Many use these as their means of livelihood to commute to their place of work.

The other category of older automobile owners are the retired, senior citizens, who had just saved enough to buy either a car or two wheeler and can no longer afford a newer one at the current prices.

The older automobiles also generate jobs for the mechanics who take care to keep these in good running condition..

The polluting old private cars and two wheelers need to be challaned and shown their proper place and no mercy should be shown for these. Imposition of hefty fines of Rs 10,000 or even Rs 20,000 can be thought of. But this is a country where there is abundant, arbitrary and colourful use of discretionary power by the authorities. So such stringent laws with fines do not help, as these laws make the law enforcers plump with black money, siphoned off at all levels in many cases.

The Heritage Motoring Club of India (HMCI) based in New Delhi has very good legal eagles, rather some of the best in our country. I am sure the legal brains work and give a befitting rebuff to this very arbitrary, illogical and frivolous decision by the NGT.

[rajneeesh]

The national Green Tribual has done it again. This body single handedly had brought the real estate sector in Noida to its knees by declaring a No construction zone within a radius of 10 Km from the okhla bird scantuary. In a place like NCr it would cover more than half of Noida and will well extend all the eay to India Gate. As a result of this ill adviced decree, over a lakh flats getting constructed were effected and the buyers could not get possession of their ready to move in flats due to non issuance of a completion certificate by the Noida Authority. The law is now being amended to a reasonable distance of 100 M.

The tribunal gets swayed by eco- terrorists like Centre for Science and Environment, who have been advocating higher taxes on fuel, personal transport and parking without realising that Delhi/ NCR lacks a reliable, safe and comfortable public transport system. We do not like drivig on the congested roads, brthig foul air but have to do so to earn a livelihood.

The govenment will do well to improve the quality of fuel produced in PSU refineries and advance the implementation of Euro V norms throughout the country. Most truscks sold today are Bharat Stage 3 as they are cheaper. The trruck owners buy theri trucks outside the major cities but ply them in the major cities.

The peripheral highways to bypass delhi are way behind schedule, overloading of commercial vehicles is rampant, PUC certificates are given without any proper checks and we have another harebrained decision.

In such decisions the manufactureres back the laws while the very same manufacturers are loath to equip the vehicles they produce with safety features like airbags, ABS and reinforced structures.

To top it all we have a Minister for Roads & Highways like Gadkari who rides a two wheeler without a helmet and justifies it.

Typical case of Andher Nagari Chaupat Raja.

[Lobogris]

I don't see what the big fuss is. An exception is likely to be made for classic cars once the details and the modalities are worked out for this order if it gets eventually implemented. How many people keep their cars beyond 15 years? Most people I know change their cars every 3 to 7 years. 15 years is normally the end of the life cycle of a car and one has to move to newer, safer and better vehicles. On one hand we have so many members clamouring for better safety features to be mandatory and then we have members suggesting that old unsafe vehicles should be allowed to ply forever. In such a case, how would people move to safer cars with airbags, crumple zones, abs etc if they keep driving old vehicles? Pollution in NCR is a serious matter and some sacrifice has to be made for greater good. Many similar cities have imposed restrictions on driving private vehicles by limiting the days of week when one can drive in to the city or by imposing a congestion charge. Of course many other steps should be taken in tandem but this is a good step in itself.

Originally Posted by Mohammed4rmhyd

Does this new rule mean that any car gets down to zero value in 15 years??? A high end car like a RR or a Bently or anycar for that matter , has a 15 year life span and get to zero value? Confusing. Imagine the rate tariffs of normal cabs and also luxury cabs, if they are to recover their value, road taxes running costs and profit in !% yrs, sure will cost more than flying or helihopping.
A normal middleclass family buys a car like an once in a life oppertunity and as the kids start college the vehicle is zero valued and they have to invest in another. Is this possible?

No taxi company keeps its vehicles beyond 15 years. Most taxi operators change their cars after 4 to 7 years as the cost of maintenance is too high for older vehicles and their customers demand newer models. In any case, Delhi doesn't allow commercial vehicles older than 15 years so this is a moot point. What value remains for a 15 year old car anyway? Even without this order the value is zero anyway unless the car is a rare classic. For example, how much do you get for a year 2000 Ambassador or Maruti 800 today? It is nearly zero.

[CarNerd]

I think that the ban should be based on the number of kilometers a car has run taking into account the type of fuel used instead of the number of years it has been driven (or not driven). That would make some people be wary of how much they drive and that in turn might reduce pollution. Also eco-friendly cars should be given some benefits on the number of kilometers.

[Blue Bird]

Originally Posted by Lobogris

I don't see what the big fuss is. An exception is likely to be made for classic cars once the details and the modalities are worked out for this order if it gets eventually implemented. How many people keep their cars beyond 15 years? Most people I know change their cars every 3 to 7 years. 15 years is normally the end of the life cycle of a car and one has to move to newer, safer and better vehicles. On one hand we have so many members clamouring for better safety features to be mandatory and then we have members suggesting that old unsafe vehicles should be allowed to ply forever. In such a case, how would people move to safer cars with airbags, crumple zones, abs etc if they keep driving old vehicles? Pollution in NCR is a serious matter and some sacrifice has to be made for greater good. Many similar cities have imposed restrictions on driving private vehicles by limiting the days of week when one can drive in to the city or by imposing a congestion charge. Of course many other steps should be taken in tandem but this is a good step in itself.



Even without this order the value is zero anyway unless the car is a rare classic. For example, how much do you get for a year 2000 Ambassador or Maruti 800 today? It is nearly zero.

While I do agree to your views and concerns over pollution and safety. I am just not ready to accept the fundamental thought process applied behind such an order, are we under a military or dictatorial regime? It appears to be so because the order seems to have emanated without any thought process or brainstorming behind it.

The intention may be good (at least on first glance) but the order is dictatorial in every aspect, while I very much share the same concerns that every Indian citizen does and I do agree that on a percentage analysis 15 year old vehicles are likely to be more in the polluting category but is that the only logic we as a nation of intelligent people have applied to arrive at this order.

How can you ban someone from driving a vehicle which he has been maintaining in mint condition so as to ensure that someone else who hasn't done so, that's not how justice works. I vehemently oppose to this outrageous trampling of an Indian citizen's rights.

[S_U_N]

My Maruti Zen is a 1996 model. I spent around 1 lac a couple of months ago and restored it completely. It looks newer than most cars around me. The PUC is done and so is the third party insurance in place.

The vehicle is road worthy. Why should it be scrapped?

[zenren]

They could have made it much more clear and cut-throat by just saying that a registration renewal should meet/enforce the same emission norms as applicable for a fresh registration. This would mean that a 15 year old car that didn't even meet Euro-I norms when brand new would now need to meet the BS-IV norms to obtain the renewal, which is practically impossible. I don't think any of the vehicles more than 15 years of age can meet even BS-III norms without significant investment, which would be money down the drain. This would kick out all the older vehicles off the road just like they wanted.

If someone is actually willing to go through the pain of making their car compliant to the latest emission norms, then that vehicle being granted permission to ply on road is not an issue to the environment irrespective of its age.

Originally Posted by S_U_N

My Maruti Zen is a 1996 model. I spent around 1 lac a couple of months ago and restored it completely. It looks newer than most cars around me. The PUC is done and so is the third party insurance in place.

The vehicle is road worthy. Why should it be scrapped?

I can fully understand the plight since I have a 95 Zen. However, the looks of a car has got nothing to do with the pollution levels. It is the same old technology sitting under the hood. Our cars would never meet even the BS-2 emission norms in its current state, which was why most cars were converted to MPFI and catalytic converters added around the 2001 time frame. So, it is still probably more polluting than newer cars while it still meets the PUC limits which is practically the same pre-2000 norms.

[Hayek]

Originally Posted by Lobogris

How many people keep their cars beyond 15 years? Most people I know change their cars every 3 to 7 years. 15 years is normally the end of the life cycle of a car and one has to move to newer, safer and better vehicles. On one hand we have so many members clamouring for better safety features to be mandatory and then we have members suggesting that old unsafe vehicles should be allowed to ply forever.

A few fallacies in your argument here.

First on people you know changing cars every 3 to 7 years. They do that because they get a resale value for their cars. They don't discard their cars every 3 to 7 years. My first car was a 3 year old Zen, which I sold when it was about 10 years old. The person who bought it would have intended to keep it for a while, and then sell to someone else - not scrap it after another 5 years.

Second on safety - the issue with new cars being sold without safety features is that they affect the safety of the car parc after another 10 or 15 years. Allowing someone to buy a 15 year old car (which would be a real alternate to a bike or a auto rickshaw) does not impact safety of the parc years down the line - these cars just represent the tail and will naturally disappear in 5-7 years.

Third on pollution - I don't think there is a hard line that can be drawn that vehicles above 15 years pollute and newer ones don't. I have seen brand new diesel cars emitting visible smoke even in Bombay, while well maintained, low mileage cars that are over 15 years old probably pollute less than the average 5 year old car. Making the PUC tests more stringent and reliable is a must - but a car that passes the test should be treated similarly, whether it is 15 years old or 10. At some stage, the test must be in line with Euro 3 or Euro 4 norms - such that older cars will flunk them in any case. But I am willing to bet that several 3-5 year old cars would also flunk such tests.

Lastly, I see this as yet another example of an overactive judiciary, usurping power that rightly belongs with parliament and making laws without thinking about trade offs. That is a bigger issue than just the fate of some cars in Delhi.

[Vintage1]

There are some of us with pre-Classic cars who spend a bomb on maintenance and authentic parts: suspension and even paint etc. Such rulings would kill our enthusiasm and prevent many cars from going Classic.

[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by Hayek

A few fallacies in your argument here.

First on people you know changing cars every 3 to 7 years. They do that because they get a resale value for their cars. They don't discard their cars every 3 to 7 years. My first car was a 3 year old Zen, which I sold when it was about 10 years old. The person who bought it would have intended to keep it for a while, and then sell to someone else - not scrap it after another 5 years.

Second on safety - the issue with new cars being sold without safety features is that they affect the safety of the car parc after another 10 or 15 years. Allowing someone to buy a 15 year old car (which would be a real alternate to a bike or a auto rickshaw) does not impact safety of the parc years down the line - these cars just represent the tail and will naturally disappear in 5-7 years.

Third on pollution - I don't think there is a hard line that can be drawn that vehicles above 15 years pollute and newer ones don't. I have seen brand new diesel cars emitting visible smoke even in Bombay, while well maintained, low mileage cars that are over 15 years old probably pollute less than the average 5 year old car. Making the PUC tests more stringent and reliable is a must - but a car that passes the test should be treated similarly, whether it is 15 years old or 10. At some stage, the test must be in line with Euro 3 or Euro 4 norms - such that older cars will flunk them in any case. But I am willing to bet that several 3-5 year old cars would also flunk such tests.

Lastly, I see this as yet another example of an overactive judiciary, usurping power that rightly belongs with parliament and making laws without thinking about trade offs. That is a bigger issue than just the fate of some cars in Delhi.

I agree with you regarding the concern about the judiciary delving in to the realm of the executive branch.

On your first point, yes, people receive some resale value after 7 years for their cars. However, the resale value is already small after a car is more than 10 years old. No sensible person purchases a 10 years old car hoping that it would last another 10 years for him. We are not talking about rare or classic vehicles here. Right now we can see even relatively expensive cars like Honda City from 2000 being sold for around 1 lakh. Cheaper vehicles like the Santro are being sold now for 20K ony for a year 2000 model.. Hence the resale value after 15 years is paltry and I wont be shedding any tears in it is further reduced. 15 years is enough time for someone to make good use of their vehicle and to save money for a replacement. In any case those unable to purchase a new vehicle can buy a used one, say 5 years old, which would be a vast improvement on their 15 year old one. Loss of 20 to 50K resale value is a small price to pay for the health and wellness of the entire city.

Coming to your second point, the sooner we can remove old clunkers, the quicker we can move towards safer and better vehicles. Why allow a 15 year old vehicle to ply another 5-7 years?

On your third point, emission norms were much less stringent in the past and the cars from 1990s pollute much more than newer ones regardless of how well maintained they are. Even a brand new car from 1995 pollutes much more than a car from 2010.

As India gets more prosperous, it is time to remove old, unsafe, polluting vehicles at least from the major cities. That is part of progress and prosperity. India is not alone in mandating removal of old clunkers. Several other nations like China and France are doing so currently as well.