[allajunaki]

So the NICE Corridor has a speed limit of 120Kmph, I can imagine all vehicles with constant Beeeep over the highway.
Some roads between Salem and Coimbatore has a speed limit of 100Km/h, what about those?
Whats likely to happen is, manufacturers will simply put this buzzer behind a single fuse, which customers will remove (if not the showroom themselves). Much like saree guards on sports bikes.

[ais]

The driver's irritation from the buzzer will cause more accidents than prevent.

[Hayek]

Am somewhat shocked by the attitude shown by BHPians on this thread. Rear parking sensors AND rear cameras are compulsory in several parts of the world - making them compulsory in India makes eminent sense.

In fact, the case for government regulation to protect pedestrians is far greater than the case for regulation to protect car owners. Car owners have the ability to choose the features they want - and it's their prerogative if they prefer a touch screen display over a body which can maintain structural integrity. But pedestrians can't choose what car owners buy - hence banning killer bull bars, making pedestrian safe bumper and bonnet designs, and rear cameras / sensors compulsory makes far more sense than making air bags compulsory.

On the speed sensor - I agree - especially one set at 80 kph is ridiculous.

[ais]

There is a valid point in what you say. Others are saying measure towards road safety need prioritizing, and several other measures, many mentioned in this thread, are more urgently required than rear sensors and cameras- which are also required.

[prakash_ajp]

Yet another joke, one must say. We have enough of rules already, but who cares? Most people in the city drive with their rear view mirrors folded in, let alone looking at them when necessary. Why don't they start with the simplest of rules and ensure that they are followed by everyone, such as not driving on the other side of the road, not parking where not allowed, use indicators when necessary etc.? To be very honest, I am left searching for suitable derogatory remarks for those who come up with such rules and worse believe that this will solve all our problems.

[CarJunki]

As we are on the sensors, even a front sensor will be good idea in India. Because bumper to bumper traffic really means most of the time bumpers of automobiles are too close to comfort.

I have in fact seen some small cars being below the last point of those high dump trucks.

[1.2TSI7DSG]

Originally Posted by dZired

Rear parking sensors or rear view cameras will soon be made compulsory for all new cars sold in the country.
Attachment 1552194

Link to Team-BHP News

I hope they make Functional Tail-lamps compulsory too... along with head lamps...
I am sure this will help reducing the amount of fatalities on road.

[silverado]

Originally Posted by King_pin09

The ORVMS and IRVMS provide adequate rear view of the parking spot so that the driver can move into it precisely. The onus should ideally be on the pedestrian to move out of the way and avert the accident.


They would freely cross paths with reversing cars and then in case of any hit/ collision, the driver will be held at entire responsibility by saying “you have the camera and could have seen me coming, you should have stopped”.

ORVM and IRVMS do not provide adequate rear view in all cars. Please try reversing a Nano and let us know.

The onus ideally should be on pedestrian, but this is INDIA.
They are anyways free to cross paths even now, so in our world Onus is on driver to avoid hitting them.
They would blame you even if you don't have a camera, since no one will notice if you have/ don't have a camera when they are hit.

[King_pin09]

Originally Posted by silverado

ORVM and IRVMS do not provide adequate rear view in all cars. Please try reversing a Nano and let us know.

The onus ideally should be on pedestrian, but this is INDIA.
They are anyways free to cross paths even now, so in our world Onus is on driver to avoid hitting them.
They would blame you even if you don't have a camera, since no one will notice if you have/ don't have a camera when they are hit.

Well I beg to differ in opinion.

The main intent of having IRVM and ORVMs is to provide sufficient indirect view of the area behind for which the driver does not have a direct view (A camera also provides indirect view). If these mirrors are designed so poorly that they do not serve their intended purpose then the Manufacturer should be held at fault and be legally compelled to revise its design.

The Governement cannot charge innocent car owners by way of mandating additional gadgets, just because it is so lethargic/ lazy that it does not want to impose the rules set by none but itself.

[silverado]

Originally Posted by King_pin09

Well I beg to differ in opinion.

The main intent of having IRVM and ORVMs is to provide sufficient indirect view of the area behind for which the driver does not have a direct view

Agreed, Manufacturer should design them in efficient way but most new cars have poor rearward visibility these days ( Thick C pillars, high sill etc ).

Both my cars , Baleno and Nano are not the easiest to Park while reversing.
This is where sensors come really handy, I can park them in tightest of spots without worrying too much.

For eg : how will I see bonnet or bumper of a Narrow car like Alto when I am reversing in my Baleno? Sensors come handy I such scenario's.
Of course above example is for tight parking spots.

I found Premier Padmini to be easiest to park, since you had a good direct view and could see both rear corners of dicky.
Also even if Sensors are mandate, its not that bad an idea as they would not add too much to the cost of vehicle.

[thomahawk]

Sorry to bring up the old thread. Can anyone help me understand the requirements outlined in the amendment better? I have a Tiago EV LR Lux without reverse sensors and just the camera. There are no audio warnings, and the camera quality is average at best. During rain or chaotic situations, the camera alone is of no help.

The first time I asked the dealer about installing the reverse sensor, they said any electrical accessory would void manufacturer warranty. But when I saw them installing a camera on another EV, they said they do install electrical accessories when customers insist but TATA recommends not tampering with electricals.

Since my car already had several electrical issues, I decided not to take a chance and asked them to write to HQ and get a formal response. The dealer just verbally told me after repeated follow-ups that it is not possible.

Since the current top variants come with sensors installed, I tried a different dealer and they agreed to install the front parking sensor accessory on rear bumper. On asking about installing the part of the new model they said they can't do it without approval from TATA and I'm back to square one. I wanted to get the OEM solution which works in tandem with the camera - and I don't see a reason why it can't be done. I told them I can pay for changing the harness if required. I think they are worried if it will mess up electricals - but I believe the HV wiring is not related, and it should be as simple as doing it on the regular Tiago.

I had raised a compliant in PG portal for a recall and the case was closed and redirected to TATA for a redressal. I haven't got a response yet - and it has been a month. The letter said revert to customer in 7 working days.

My question is did TATA break the guidelines in the amendment? My car doesn't have audible warning. Can I sue them if they are of no help in solving this properly?
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attac...1&d=1705471107

[yaleen]

Originally Posted by thomahawk

Sorry to bring up the old thread. Can anyone help me understand the requirements outlined in the amendment better? I have a Tiago EV LR Lux without reverse sensors and just the camera. There are no audio warnings, and the camera quality is average at best. During rain or chaotic situations, the camera alone is of no help.

My question is did TATA break the guidelines in the amendment? My car doesn't have audible warning. Can I sue them if they are of no help in solving this properly?
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attac...1&d=1705471107

From what I understand, the rule is slightly ambiguous and mentions that you can provide Sensors or camera or both. So I have seen in some other variants, notably in Kwid where they only provide camera and no sensors. I have had my relatives with same issue with Kwid where they misread the specs and realized only after delivery that sensors where not there. They had the sensors installed later through the dealership itself. Attached is a screenshot from same Annex 6 - little lower in that document.

[thomahawk]

Originally Posted by yaleen

From what I understand, the rule is slightly ambiguous and mentions that you can provide Sensors or camera or both. So I have seen in some other variants, notably in Kwid where they only provide camera and no sensors.

Thanks, yaleen. I missed this part when I read it. The testing conditions specifically calls out the ambient condition of test compliance - that it shouldn't be raining. I wonder if the panel had anyone who paused to think about this. In my other cars camera is inset (inside the cavity for number plate lights, or the cavity for tailgate release button) and they are covered to some degree during heavy downpours. Tiago EV’s camera just juts out and will be covered with droplets during rain – making it useless.

Guess I'm at the mercy of service center. I had bought a rain repellent cleaner for glass – think it is time to take it out and try it on the camera as well.