[mayankk]

This is pure corporate lobby work.
Is anybody questioning what the alternative is for people?
You effectively wipe out the used car market. But you don't show any plans where you can provide a better public transportation system. The roads will be empty, and pollution free, while people will start using the metro which has seating for everyone, and is underutilized? or the buses which float through the streets while you relax in the 22degree C ACC?
Take a case in point. X gets a job offer in a firm 50 kms one way. Although its a corporate hub, there is no Bus/metro/comfortable commute, and there is no second hand car market where he can pick up an A/C vehicle for a feasible amount. So he settles for a job at 50% the salary, closer to home.

I don't see any benefit to the common man.
I am sure there is a silver lining here for someone?Who could it be, I wonder?

Whats going to be next on the list? books that cant be read after 5 years, computers that cant be used after 3?
God forbid if you have a 6610 in this age!It'll be confiscated soon!


EDIT: I was just thinking of an analogy here.
Say, there have been faults in HIV detection in hospitals, so the National Heath tribunal has dictated that all who come in for HIV testing need to be culled, since the HIV detection process has faltered.
Later, they are reiterating, that owing to non detection, from now on, all humans need to be culled as soon as they hit puberty. That is the way to fix the numbers of HIV statistics.
Brainless In-Justice

[AB@TVMBHP]

Does the NGT has power to take such decisons? It was said by the Honourable Supreme Court that NGT doesn't have any authority to indulge into all matters below the sun.

[AB@TVMBHP]

I would say the policy has good as well as bad part.
Good part:
A) Highly polluting vehicles would be scrapped.
B) Car's on the road will be of pretty much the same generation. We wont see ancient rotten cars on the roads.
C) Good for the auto industry.
D) Second hand market would be flourishing as second hand cars will be dirt cheap. Who will buy a car which was used for some 4 or 5 yrs and there by having only 5 yrs left on its timeline.

Bad part:
A) Many cars would become part of history. Cant imagine a OHC, Ambassador, Contessa etc at a museum after the rule comes into existence.
B) Its hardly feasible in a country like India where everything is taxed up and the prices of cars are high in the first place.
C) Cannot be applicable to all cars. You cannot scrap a Rolls Royce, Bentley etc just because its 10 years old. . These cars are build to outlast the guys who make them. Meanwhile for small cars like suzuki alto, nano etc its well and good.
D) The per capita income of India is not so high to bring such a law. Poor people cannot afford to change cars just like that.
E) Finally we will be loosing a lot of classic cars.
I hope the government make the law in an appropriate way that it is acceptable to the people. Scrapping cars based on their condition is actually good. But based on age is non sence. This NGT guys are bullying into everything. This should be controlled.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by honeybee

With so much clamor going on about the latest safety devices, how many cars over 15 years of age would actually meet today's requirements about safety belts or other equipment? There will have to be a date past which such old vehicles cannot ply on the roads every day. There needs also to be a process where owners who are interested to keep the old vehicles can get them classified as 'classic' or 'vintage' and these vehicles are allowed on the roads on special occasions.

So while 10 years may not sound like too much for some, an age of 20 years could definitely be looked at as the end of a vehicle's useful life.

There are many cars that were sold even 25 years ago, that still have seatbelts, and their body structure is probably safer than the flimsy vehicles being put onto the roads today. Also, please bear in mind that many of the people who put their old cars to pasture end up buying more powerful vehicles. A more powerful vehicle usually ends up with greater emissions, and that's not even calculating the sheer environmental damage caused by the increased demand for more steel, glass, rubber, plastics etc... when a new vehicle is manufactured.

I do admit that in certain cases technology does leap frog and deliver some spectacular benefits, but I think its probably more intelligent and environment friendly if the pollution benchmarks are defined and any car that does not meet the benchmarks is required to be scrapped. Age cannot and should not be the criteria.

Of course, keeping in mind the practical aspects of how influential our automotive lobby is, its only a matter of time before these stupid laws are enacted and enforced.

[ssambyal1980]

Banning a vehicle solely on the basis of its expiry date is not a feasible idea. This can be understood by considering following two scenarios:

Scenario 1: A vehicle which has reached its expiry date may still be in a perfect running condition owing to better handling and maintenance by its owner. Banning such a vehicle would lead to wastage of a useful asset.

Scenario 2: A poorly maintained vehicle may start adding to pollution although it may be only couple of years old. In this case the ban won't be applicable, hence giving full leverage to the careless owner to further contribute towards environment degradation.

The current arrangement wherein the private vehicles are registered for 15 years is quite satisfactory. As most of the cars nowadays are highly technology driven, with zero maintenance and negligible emissions. Whereas in case of commercial vehicles the Registration Certificate has to be renewed on year to year basis, which assures that they are in good working condition.
The need of the hour is strict implementation of pollution control norms especially for the commercial vehicles, as this is the segment which immensely contributes towards harmful emissions. Merely banning them on the basis of time period expiry will also lead to huge pile up of metal junk, the disposal of which will be another serious problem.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Assessing vehicles by condition, not age, is the way to go --- unless it is indeed just a clever lobby from the car industry to sell more cars.

The by-age thing opens up another market. I know someone who does very well out of exporting 10-yr-old vehicles (which would have to have a prohibitive amount of further tax for continued use) from Singapore, and I'm sure he has plenty of competitors.

Do people realise that, in UK (I don't know about USA or other European countries), a vehicle has to pass an annual "MOT" test at a mere three years old? It is strictly enforced, too: you need that cert to renew the insurance.

The impact on commercial vehicles here would be huge --- and they are probably the number-one reason why such a thing should be enforced. Imagine, for starters, trucks and buses having to have tyres that are in good condition, let alone brakes, etc.

But I'm not putting any money on any of that happening.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Assessing vehicles by condition, not age, is the way to go --- unless it is indeed just a clever lobby from the car industry to sell more cars.

The by-age thing opens up another market. I know someone who does very well out of exporting 10-yr-old vehicles (which would have to have a prohibitive amount of further tax for continued use) from Singapore, and I'm sure he has plenty of competitors.

Do people realise that, in UK (I don't know about USA or other European countries), a vehicle has to pass an annual "MOT" test at a mere three years old? It is strictly enforced, too: you need that cert to renew the insurance.

The impact on commercial vehicles here would be huge --- and they are probably the number-one reason why such a thing should be enforced. Imagine, for starters, trucks and buses having to have tyres that are in good condition, let alone brakes, etc.

But I'm not putting any money on any of that happening.

There's already way too many vehicles plying without insurance, if we make obtaining insurance any more difficult, more people would do without it.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

There's already way too many vehicles plying without insurance, if we make obtaining insurance any more difficult, more people would do without it.

This is precisely what all of us have been hankering for.
The mechanism is existent. Implement it! Unfortunately, lack of documents is a way of minting money, and hence has been put aside precisely because it's a supplemental income pipeline.
Which is a body of unexposed-to-reality , er, gents ,exists to spew ridiculousness on us guys.

[honeybee]

Body structure is not only meant to protect the occupants but also others outside the vehicle. An Ambassador might save the occupants but will be fatal to someone outside the car.

If you equate crumple zones to flimsy metal, I have nothing to say.

Heavier vehicles will polute more, so you need to understand that cars will never be built with a two inch thick steel plate all around.

Out of 100 vehicles sold, how many are maintained in perfect or even good working condition by their owners past the seventh or eighth year? If you glance through some of the advice on buying preowned cars you will find the best deals are cars around three years old.

[hybridpetrol]

When they mean vehicles come with an expiry date, what do they really mean?
If it is for the new vehicles that are manufactured, it is well and good. For example, Alto 800, manufactured in Aug 2015 - expires in Aug 2025, Nano, manufactured in Aug 2015 - expires in Aug 2023, Polo TDI manufactured in Aug 2015 - expires in Aug 2028 and so on. The date stamped for every version, in agreement with an authority (such as ARAI)
This way of stamping an expiry date, during the manufacturing, considering various parameters, would actually be good for various reasons, apart from the environmental factors:
1) The used car market will not have age old vehicles. Vehicles in used car market will be priced accordingly due to their specific depreciation factors, making more people buy less priced used cars, including those who never thought of buying a car otherwise. How good this deal is? 6 year old Alto - available for 40K, because it expires in 4 years.
2) From manufacturer's point of view - it is additional business, as every few years users are forced to replace their cars. In addition, making spare parts available and supporting is relatively simple, as they do not need to provide support to cars that were manufactured decades ago.

Regarding the cars that are already plying on the road, an entirely new scheme need to be devised. It is unfair to simply say all vehicles crossed 10 years are banned. By this way a person who just bought 11 year old car for a few lakh rupees loses all his money in a moment, just like investing in a stock of a company that declares bankruptcy.

[Sunsh!nes]

A good measure to curb pollution from badly maintained vehicles, but at the sametime, all govt departments find out some or the other way to earn money through corruption.

Unless this is implemented with all strictness and honesty I dont see any point in this measure though. RTOs are specialising in it now. Mostly its the govt vehicles that aren't maintained well and the transport vehicles from whom these department make their most moolah from are spared. Lets see whether they come cracking down on these vehicles first.

Moreover, logically speaking by scrapping the cars beyond 10-15 years of age will only add up more scrap in the market and the used car market is bound to fall. In that case they should reduce the prices of the new cars as a buyer who bought a car for 10L and sells it for 5L and by 10th Year the second Owner will have to scrap the car. (as said by one of the users above) . The money spent on maintenance is completely gone waste.

Ofcourse, there are circumstances where cars though old will still serve well for more than 15 years. I have myself seen cars beyond 15 years of age and working perfectly fine even today with routine maintenance and servicing. Question is why Scrap them.

One of the best things to do is crack down the vehicles which are poorly maintained and polluting the air be it public or private vehicle, that way they can reduce pollution and also create a balance. Eventually, if this law is strictly followed,then we will have scrap dealers becoming millionaire's probably we can simultaneously open a scrap dealership and make some good money

[Shreekz]

Originally Posted by mayankk

This is pure corporate lobby work.
Is anybody questioning what the alternative is for people?
You effectively wipe out the used car market. But you don't show any plans where you can provide a better public transportation system. The roads will be empty, and pollution free, while people will start using the metro which has seating for everyone, and is underutilized? or the buses which float through the streets while you relax in the 22degree C ACC?
Take a case in point. X gets a job offer in a firm 50 kms one way. Although its a corporate hub, there is no Bus/metro/comfortable commute, and there is no second hand car market where he can pick up an A/C vehicle for a feasible amount. So he settles for a job at 50% the salary, closer to home.

I don't see any benefit to the common man.
I am sure there is a silver lining here for someone?Who could it be, I wonder?

Whats going to be next on the list? books that cant be read after 5 years, computers that cant be used after 3?
God forbid if you have a 6610 in this age!It'll be confiscated soon!


EDIT: I was just thinking of an analogy here.
Say, there have been faults in HIV detection in hospitals, so the National Heath tribunal has dictated that all who come in for HIV testing need to be culled, since the HIV detection process has faltered.
Later, they are reiterating, that owing to non detection, from now on, all humans need to be culled as soon as they hit puberty. That is the way to fix the numbers of HIV statistics.
Brainless In-Justice

It is merely a publicity gimmick by Swatantar Kumar and his minions. Probably persuaded by the ailing automobile industry. Neither theoretically nor factually has NGT any power to issue such a direction. SK is still in the hangover from the Supreme Court years. Activism is tough vice to shed after a stint in the omnipotent SC.

[deep_bang]

Well. I don't understand one thing: Who bears the cost of such a move of banning a car over 10 years?
The answer is not as simple as "the common man". For instance say one has a hatch like polo today. If he feels its very expensive he will just buy a cheaper car next time. Ultimately every one has only a certain amount of money they can afford to spend.

Now that means people may only buy smaller cheaper cars. If people do indeed pay more than they used to, they will probably reduce the expenses elsewhere (lesser outings? Smaller houses?).

So as a whole if you look at the Indian GDP, it would simply reduce as we would end up scrapping cars more often.

Now for a country like India - can we afford it?

[apachelongbow]

What about ensuring expiry dates for NGT members? As is most of them are 'retired' ex government employees, who seem to have nothing better to do than create obstructions and waste collective time and money. Ideally bodies like NGT must have skilled people fit for the job not some pensioner who wants to see the world as it was in his childhood.

[Shreekz]

NGT carries in it, ex SC Judge Swatantar Kumar, who was the one who came up with the logic of placing blanket ban on sun control films when he was in the SC. He didn't even have second thoughts about the climate in India or an alternate option of permitting films of certain shades. His remedy for any given issue is a ban. Give him any problem and he will readily come up with a ban solution. Theft - Ban private property, Corruption - Ban Monetary System... His logic is unique, like that of Judge Nicholas Rémy of France who used to burn women he considered to be witches.