[digitalnirvana]

Originally Posted by raj4466

Definitely was not.
But it's not legal in India because our laws are retarded. Check out places like Australia where these bumpers are legal.

And they do have these laws on safety and vehicle fitness implemented in a better way. When we are still waiting for the government mandated crash test which is getting postponed every year.

Not trying to be confrontational, however
1. Its illegal so should not be on road. Agree?
2. Are there any non certified metal bumper (which this clearly is) that are legal in Australia for on road use?
3. How is government mandated crash test relevant for this topic? If a user bolts on an illegal mod after market, isn't that a failure of law enforcement to catch and impound that vehicle, not of crash testing?

[raj4466]

Originally Posted by digitalnirvana

Not trying to be confrontational, however
1. Its illegal so should not be on road. Agree?
2. Are there any non certified metal bumper (which this clearly is) that are legal in Australia for on road use?
3. How is government mandated crash test relevant for this topic? If a user bolts on an illegal mod after market, isn't that a failure of law enforcement to catch and impound that vehicle, not of crash testing?

No no, it's fine.

1. Yes I agree. With the current set of rules in India it's illegal.
2. In Australia you will get only certified ones, and they have a body to verify and endorse mods if they are as per specifications.
3. I was referring to our laws being outdated. And govt keeping on extending the deadlines for the newer necessary ones.

[r4jt]

Originally Posted by binoym

You Should See The Other Guy

Excuse the title. This was not a bar fight but rather an appreciation post for the make and build of one manufacturer over the other.

I'm relieved to hear that your driver is safe, but I must express my grave concern about the modifications made to Thar's bumper. This alteration has severely compromised the car's crumple zone, meaning that in the event of a collision with a larger vehicle or stationary object, the passengers inside the car could sustain life-threatening injuries. Furthermore, there is a real risk that the airbags may not deploy in such a situation, leaving the occupants without any protection.

Let me be clear: these modifications are not only ill-advised, but also completely illegal. Even if the previous generation of the Baleno had issues with build quality, this has nothing to do with the safety of the vehicle. While I'm not suggesting that Maruti cars are the safest on the market, it's important to recognize that the Thar's bumper - constructed from rock-solid material - would cause significant damage to any car that meets NCAP safety standards, just as it did to your Baleno.

It's crucial to understand that a car's structural stability is not the same as its build quality. Any modifications that compromise safety of others should be avoided at all costs.

[whitewing]

Originally Posted by binoym

You Should See The Other Guy
...

Hope the insurance claim covers majority of the expenses.

I suppose it is my lack of visualization abilities while trying to visualize the accident. From the pics posted, your car got bashed up on the driver's side while the Thar appears to have gotten a minor scratch on the passenger side. If so how did the scuffle happen head on? Shouldn't the blemish on the Thar happened on the driver's side as well?

BTW: That is a nice caption, for a tough situation

[rajivr1612]

Originally Posted by whitewing

Hope the insurance claim covers majority of the expenses.

I suppose it is my lack of visualization abilities while trying to visualize the accident. From the pics posted, your car got bashed up on the driver's side while the Thar appears to have gotten a minor scratch on the passenger side. If so how did the scuffle happen head on? Shouldn't the blemish on the Thar happened on the driver's side as well?

BTW: That is a nice caption, for a tough situation

Here you go from the OP's post.

"My driver was on his way back from my son’s class. He was trying to navigate a narrow lane where a Thar was reversing into a parking space on the street."

[Kashief]

Originally Posted by binoym

My driver was on his way back from my son’s class. He was trying to navigate a narrow lane where a Thar was reversing into a parking space on the street. It seems that both cars didn’t stop in time and the Baleno drove into a Thar head on at what was apparently 20 kmph. (The Thar being almost stationary as it was backing into a spot). The Thar seems to have a modified front bumper, but when I saw my Baleno (I wasn’t in the car at the time), I thought the accident was at a much higher speed. The Thar as you see has a scratch. Quite literally ONE scratch while the Baleno is smashed in.

As most of us agree that MS safety rating is less, however the damage is on higher side probably because of two reasons.
1. Bumper should be made with a flexible material to ensure pedestrian safety in case of any un wanted event but in this Thar, aftermarket bumper looks durable might be replaced for off-roaring purpose.
2. Thar is quiet high and the impacted area of Baleno is bonnet and right fender which is usually less thick compare to other metal panels of the car.

[whitewing]

Originally Posted by rajivr1612

Here you go from the OP's post.

"My driver was on his way back from my son’s class. He was trying to navigate a narrow lane where a Thar was reversing into a parking space on the street."

I did read that, that statement's what got me puzzled - head on collision while reversing would look something like the attached isn't it? What am I missing.

[balenoed_]

Originally Posted by abhishekjoshi84

If there is a road'side' you can park there. In this case it's parked on the road itself.

No, there is some space available where the vehicle was parked. I happened to drive on this route today and located that accident spot. Now they seem to have kept some stones over there to prevent vehicles parking there.



Also, that vehicle would not have caused any obstruction for the car drivers view, because it was a slight curve towards right for the car. I guess he dozed off or was drowsy and froze.

Just about two kms from the same spot, here was a Harrier right infront of me, driver dozed off and went off the road and crashed on to the guard rail. He was extremely lucky that the guard rails were there else the car would have just fallen into the valley. And also lucky to not have drifted towards the centre of the road and get head on with any oncoming vehicle. I checked on them and all were okay, except that they were shocked. We tried pushing back the vehicle to see if it was still in drivable condition, but it was totally stuck on the guard rail with front left tyre blown out. Couldn't move the car at all.

http://youtu.be/rBb1YYmaXUw

[sarathlal]

Originally Posted by balenoed_

Just about two kms from the same spot, here was a Harrier right infront of me, driver dozed off and went off the road and crashed on to the guard rail. He was extremely lucky ..

http://Youtu.be/rBb1YYmaXUw

Thank God they got out safely.
A very good example on how quickly and unexpectedly one can doze off.

Here the harrier was negotiating the turns normally and within seconds went blank. Goes on to show the importance of understanding and accepting fatigue while driving. It can turn in a flash!
Thanks for sharing.

[IshaanIan]

Originally Posted by whitewing

From the pics posted, your car got bashed up on the driver's side while the Thar appears to have gotten a minor scratch on the passenger side. If so how did the scuffle happen head on? Shouldn't the blemish on the Thar happened on the driver's side as well?

Good catch in most cases it is driver incompetency that causes such things I also personally doubt the story about crashing at 20kph (having crashed my 2004 WagonR at the same speed once).

[Mr.Ogre]

Originally Posted by raj4466

Definitely was not.
But it's not legal in India because our laws are retarded. Check out places like Australia where these bumpers are legal.

I agree to this point. You should see the bull bars and protection suvs, utes, trucks and in some cases even cars have here. Also, because the highways and most roads pass through jungles and it is not uncommon to see all sorts of creatures like wallaby, kangaroo, deer, wombats cross the roads. These creatures are not exactly small and one hit can be fatal to the vehicle, the occupants and others on the road. The number of road kills you see is insane.
Yes, all these modifications are legal as long as they are within the law. Every year you have to renew your registration and if the vehicle is more than 5 years old, you have to go through mandatory checks to renew the registration.

[AutoNoob]

Originally Posted by binoym

He was trying to navigate a narrow lane where a Thar was reversing into a parking space on the street. It seems that both cars didn’t stop in time and the Baleno drove into a Thar head on at what was apparently 20 kmph. (The Thar being almost stationary as it was backing into a spot).

Originally Posted by rajivr1612

Here you go from the OP's post.

Originally Posted by whitewing

I did read that, that statement's what got me puzzled - head on collision while reversing would look something like the attached isn't it? What am I missing.

This is my visualization from the narration of situation by OP.

[sanjayrozario]

Originally Posted by sanjayrozario

What's with trucks & failing brakes.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/vide...ndtv_topscroll

[kaps454]

Originally Posted by mayankk

If you have the heart for it, you should take the legal route for the thar owner to cover this damage.

Avoid the legal route, not worth the hassle, and yes, the Thar's modified bumpers are downright illegal and so are crash bars, bull guards or whatever else you might choose to call them, but people use them anyways and the judge the case comes up before will probably have them on his/her car too!!

Speeds must have been higher than stated, or the Baleno is truly all crumple zones.

Originally Posted by aayusht

This leads to a question - is GNCAP rating the primary reference for measuring how sturdy the car is? How do I compare the sheet metal of a Baleno vs Altroz vs i10 vs Amaze?

I do not think sheet metal thickness or number of airbags make much of a difference in the scoring. It depends on occupant protection for a standardised test. This was stated by a top ranking NCAP official when there was talk of mandating 6 airbags.

Anyways, buy the TATA, safest by far. Lots of Baleno examples getting crushed and people dying in them the real world. As for the Amaze, I have it, it's bumper tore at the corner (strongest part I would guess) when a street dog ran into our parked car. We have a Zest too, accidentally blown away dogs with it on the highway. Nothing happens.


regards kaps454

[for_cars1]

Originally Posted by aayusht

... is GNCAP rating the primary reference for measuring how sturdy the car is? How do I compare the sheet metal of a Baleno vs Altroz vs i10 vs Amaze?
...

A car may have thin sheet metal but a very sturdy passenger cage that resists deformation upto 64 kmph (the top speed at which crash testing is done).
Conversely, a car with thick sheet metal may look sturdy but may have a highly unsafe passenger cage that would collapse in case of a collision. So sheet metal thickness doesn't mean much from a safety perspective.

A car with a Global NCAP rating of atleast 4 implies that the passenger cage is rigid enough during a crash (upto 64kmph) and will resist deformation/cabin intrusion of external elements and provide survival space for occupants(provided they are belted).

So by all means, choosing any car with 4 stars atleast should be good enough.