[EagleEye]

Originally Posted by FlatOut

One moment you say 'faster than I should', the next, 'confidently' and you attempt to assimilate the two. Don't think the ESP or ABS are capable of miracles - they certainly are not. It is frightening just how long it can take to stop in the wet, even with ABS.

You're right, I should be more careful.

Originally Posted by dgupta

A simple way to make the driver aware of safety is to mandate it to be taught in driving schools across the country. Of course, the practise of "buying" a driving license has to stop immediately if any progress has to be made in India related to road safety. It's just downright ridiculous to bribe and get a driving license without any proper training.

Please don't get me started on the license procedure in India.

Originally Posted by dgupta

Next step, make it mandatory for car manufacturers to make safety related information available to prospective buyers.
...
Just to compare, have a look at the amount of information available on the Hyundai UK website in comparison to the Hyundai India website.

http://www.hyundai.co.uk/new-cars/i20

http://www.hyundai.com/in/en/Showroo...PIP/index.html

Same story with the brochures, the UK brochure for the same car is 21 pages containing detailed information and tables about every aspect of the car. The Indian brochure is 2 pages with colourful pictures and a table of key features.

Edit: I could find the weight of the 1.2 petrol Hyundai in the team BHP review. It says 1066 kgs. The UK brochure gives the weight as 1083 kgs for the same engine equipped car. Pretty much the same.

PS: I cannot find any mention of Hyundai i20 in India being Euro NCAP 5 star compliant on their website.

Excellent point!! Wonder why the car manufacturers prefer to hide such information from the Indian market?? It's always the case with everything - we Indians are the most downtrodden.

Originally Posted by Oranger

Bang on, great thread guys!

One more small but important feature is the seat belt alarm, which I think would cost close to nothing but helps the less aware and negligent ones push towards safety. For instance, I used to drive a esteem LXi a couple of years ago, wherein I merely thought of fastening the seat belt as the car never asked me to.
Lately I started using a Linea Emotion pack, stuffed with safety features. As and when the speed exceeds 20 kmph, the doors lock automatically and a harsh alarm strikes your ears, which is rather unbearable and continues till you fasten the seat belt. Now the situation is, even if I'm driving a santro or say a maruti 800, I fasten the seat belt even before starting the car. This is how a small feature can help people change their perspective of looking at safety while driving. Kudos to fiat for their attention on such details.

Yes, this is a good feature. Especially if the alarm is present for the front passenger as well, it can help greatly. Often there are people who ride in your car who don't want to wear the seatbelt in spite of your insisting, but an annoying beep can make them buckle up.
However the most stubborn (morons), just remove the fuse to make the beeping stop - especially the taxi drivers.

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by gk01

Airbags only protect us, not the car. So again, the insurance issuer is not bothered.

Not exactly right I think. Don't most policies also include the driver's life cover premium for accidents (Unless specifically opted out of)? I'm sure the airbag can make an impact there?

On the other hand, I'm not exactly advocating rebates & subsidies for safety equipment. Not the way to go IMO. If someone needs a monetary motivation to look after his/her own safety, they'll probably be selected sooner by Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Buyers need to be aware, smart enough to challenge the seller on price. But ABS needs to be mandatory as a rule IMO. Prices remain in control as long as customers say "NO" to overpriced items.

[nkishore_007]

Very good thread.

All of the inputs pouring in for this discussion scream out loud that "safety comes first". No two ways about it !
ABS + EBD + front airbags are the basic ones that should be made mandatory. Though the cost factor would increase due to this, I guess Indian car market needs to make themselves come out the current strata. IMHO, quantity affects quality as well. So I would stay away from best sellers, and be content with "not well known in India" vehicle brands. I say this because the supply versus demand proposition is not very structured in our country. Things are "made" available becoz there is a demand/liquidity pouring in from all directions. This is ,in spite, of all the quality checks that a company goes through.

So where were we? ABS + EBD + Airbags !! Right..! Now talking about another feature named 'Attention assist', it is available only in the luxury segments. Is it something that is required? Yes, it is; but does it score over the golden three mentioned above? NO ! it does not.

The very fact that we have well informed individuals who took their time out and started such threads is a reason good enough to make the authorities take note and mandate such changes.

For all those drivers who think they are good, please do keep in mind how legends like Aryton Senna lost his life behind the very wheels for which he was proclaimed racing expert !

Cheers !

[joybhowmik]

Originally Posted by saket77

9. Any other safety features that you think are worth mentioning, however tenuous it might be.
Thanks,
Saket

I wonder if the government or association of automobile manufacturers are doing anything about regulating the height of bumpers for cars sold in India.

Secondly, I feel the the police should challan vehicles heavily for bull-guards installed in front of the bumper , and a total ban should be put on bull-guards in general.

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)

Originally Posted by
[B

Huge cost of mismatched bumpers: When bumpers on cars and SUVs don't line up (and many of them don't), low-speed collisions produce more damage and higher repair costs[/b]

ARLINGTON, VA — Bumpers are the first line of defense against costly damage in everyday low-speed crashes. Bumpers on cars are designed to match up with each other in collisions, but a long-standing gap in federal regulations exempts SUVs from the same rules. New Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash tests demonstrate the results: SUV bumpers that don't line up with those on cars can lead to huge repair bills in what should be minor collisions in stop-and-go traffic.

"SUVs and cars share the road," says Joe Nolan, the Institute's chief administrative officer. "The problem is they don't share the same bumper rules, and consumers end up paying the price."
A federal standard requires that all cars have bumpers that protect within a zone of 16 to 20 inches from the ground. This means car bumpers line up reasonably well and are more likely to engage during low-speed collisions to absorb energy and prevent damage. No bumper requirements apply to SUVs, pickups, or minivans, so when these vehicles have bumpers they often are flimsier and higher off the ground than bumpers on cars. Plus, SUVs and pickups may not have bumpers at all.
In fender-benders with SUVs, cars often end up with excessive damage to hoods, engine cooling systems, fenders, bumper covers, and safety equipment like lights. SUVs don't always come out unscathed either, often needing extensive work.
The Institute conducted 10 mph front-into-rear crash tests involving 7 pairs of 2010-11 models, each composed of a small car and small SUV from the same automaker.
"We picked vehicles from the same manufacturer because we think automakers should at the least pay attention to bumper compatibility across their own fleets," Nolan explains. "The results show that many don't."
In the tests, an SUV going 10 mph struck the back of its paired car, which was stopped. Then the configuration was reversed, with the car striking the back of its paired SUV. Results of these low-speed impacts varied widely, from a total of $850 damage to one vehicle to $6,015 damage to another (see table below). In some cases, the crash damage included major leaks from broken radiators and cooling fans. If these collisions had happened in the real world, the motorists wouldn't have been able to drive away. If they did, their vehicles could overheat, and the engines could be ruined.
Mismatched pairs: If bumpers don't match up, they'll bypass each other when vehicles collide, and the resulting crash energy will crumple the vehicle body. That's what happened when the Nissan Rogue struck the back of the Nissan Sentra in the SUV-into-car test. The Rogue's front bumper didn't line up at all with the Sentra's rear bumper, and the resulting $4,560 rear damage tally for the Sentra was the highest among all the cars in this test. The impact crumpled the car's bumper cover, trunk lid, and rear body. The Rogue ended up with a crushed and leaking radiator that kept the SUV from being driven after the test.

[gk01]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

Not exactly right I think. Don't most policies also include the driver's life cover premium for accidents (Unless specifically opted out of)? I'm sure the airbag can make an impact there?

Not too sure, it depends on the scope of the accident insurance coverage. If it is limited to one specific car, then Airbags in it makes sense in a rebate but I always thought the scope is more generic.

Originally Posted by Reinhard

On the other hand, I'm not exactly advocating rebates & subsidies for safety equipment. Not the way to go IMO. If someone needs a monetary motivation to look after his/her own safety, they'll probably be selected sooner by Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Exactly. Those who don't put safety at the top of the priorities should not even be allowed to drive on our roads. They should be restricted to simulations within 4 walls.

Alas, all you need to do to get a drivers license is, well, get the vehicle moving. But that is another story, rather, another thread.

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by joybhowmik

Secondly, I feel the the police should challan vehicles heavily for bull-guards installed in front of the bumper , and a total ban should be put on bull-guards in general.

I've been thinking about this one since long. But I don't think the decision is as simple as black and white. Bull-bars are mainly a pedestrian safety issue. However, they do serve a good purpose against unguided missiles (aka rash bikers & rikshaws) and protect headlamps, grilles and bumpers. In a scenario where I'm not at fault, the bull bar / guard saving these parts which cost thousands to replace is useful.

They are mostly installed on larger SUVs. In which case (please don't take me wrong or think I'm satan) a hit from the SUV without the bull bar will still be significantly injurious to a pedestrian. A ban on them won't exactly serve a 100% justifiable purpose.

[gk01]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

Bull-bars are mainly a pedestrian safety issue.

I don't think so. The stock bumpers are (mostly) designed to absorb the impact even if we hit a pedestrian which means less injury to the pedestrians. I don' think Bull-bars absorb that much. So if anything, they are less safe to pedestrians. Correct me if wrong.

Originally Posted by Reinhard

However, they do serve a good purpose against unguided missiles (aka rash bikers & rikshaws) and protect headlamps, grilles and bumpers. In a scenario where I'm not at fault, the bull bar / guard saving these parts which cost thousands to replace is useful.

This is true. However, the Insurance is there to cover any such damages (though not 100%).

So, looking at the negatives of the Bull-bars I feel they should go.

[saket77]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

Bull-bars are mainly a pedestrian safety issue.

Not at all Reinhard. More than the pedestrians, the owners of the vehicles with bull bars should be worried about their own safety.

Originally Posted by Reinhard

However, they do serve a good purpose against unguided missiles (aka rash bikers & rikshaws) and protect headlamps, grilles and bumpers. In a scenario where I'm not at fault, the bull bar / guard saving these parts which cost thousands to replace is useful.

Bull bars can mean a difference between life & death in case of a crash, shockingly having them meaning tilting towards the negative aspect. Bull bars are bolted to the chassis of the vehicle which means that in case of a frontal impact, all the vibrations are transferred directly to the cabin which would have been absorbed by the crumple zones of the vehicle including the impact taken by the bumpers. By installing a bull bar, either in front or rear, one is actually negating many safety features built into your car.

On another note, I have seen some bull bars placed as bad that the license plates get hidden by the bars. Not always, but I have seen many such vehicles. Another reason to ban them.

So the bottom line: they may keep your car a little free from scratches on the bumpers and may save your lamps in a case or two in case of snailing pace incidents, they can be pretty nasty & actually disastrous in a major accident.

Regards,
Saket

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by gk01

I don't think so. The stock bumpers are (mostly) designed to absorb the impact even if we hit a pedestrian which means less injury to the pedestrians. I don' think Bull-bars absorb that much. So if anything, they are less safe to pedestrians. Correct me if wrong.

Isn't this exactly what I said? Bull bars are an issue for pedestrian safety.

Originally Posted by gk01

This is true. However, the Insurance is there to cover any such damages (though not 100%).

So, looking at the negatives of the Bull-bars I feel they should go.

Plastic & Glass parts = 50% max covered by insurance, Loss of NCB, deduction from IDV, hassles of repair, no insurance cover in case or minor damages where they deem replacement unnecessary. Time wasted in getting these things done. Think on it.

Originally Posted by saket77

Bull bars can mean a difference between life & death in case of a crash, shockingly having them meaning tilting towards the negative aspect. Bull bars are bolted to the chassis of the vehicle which means that in case of a frontal impact, all the vibrations are transferred directly to the cabin which would have been absorbed by the crumple zones of the vehicle including the impact taken by the bumpers. By installing a bull bar, either in front or rear, one is actually negating many safety features built into your car.

This might well be true, but it needs numerical & statistical backing. The bull bar is bolted to whatever mount (chassis as you said) that is nearest behind the bumper. So in case of an impact, without the bull bar as well, that point is not too far away from being hit! Just behind a thermoplastic bumper. So I don't understand this point of the bull bar transferring the impact energy to the chassis more than non bull bar impact.

The bull bar isn't an armour. Its mostly bolted on by 4 bolts. It isn't exactly as strong as it feels. So in case of a massive shunt, it breaks / bends. The crumple zones anyway take the blow. I hope we are talking about the bull bars seen on Sumos & Scorpios & not any military spec bars seen on USMC Humvees

Originally Posted by saket77

On another note, I have seen some bull bars placed as bad that the license plates get hidden by the bars. Not always, but I have seen many such vehicles. Another reason to ban them.

Absolutely agree. This is commonplace & must be fined....I won't start about the fines where both parties agree to "resolve the matter" without a receipt and fine made to our country's cash-box.

Originally Posted by saket77

So the bottom line: they may keep your car a little free from scratches on the bumpers and may save your lamps in a case or two in case of snailing pace incidents, they can be pretty nasty & actually disastrous in a major accident.

Regards,
Saket

Agreed. But I'd rather have that decision to myself. I'd want to decide which way I want to go. Not dictated by the government with a ban.

Sun films is another example. One can very much argue that it is a safety feature. But it is banned. I agree with banning ultra dark black tints. Unfortunately they are seen on cars / SUVs with some sort of a "symbol" on the number-plate so no action is taken.
But cops ripping away sufficiently transparent sun films on roads? Which dictatorship are we in? So no. No bans for me. Making good things mandatory? Yes I'm ok.

[saket77]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

This might well be true, but it needs numerical & statistical backing. The bull bar is bolted to whatever mount (chassis as you said) that is nearest behind the bumper. So in case of an impact, without the bull bar as well, that point is not too far away from being hit! Just behind a thermoplastic bumper. So I don't understand this point of the bull bar transferring the impact energy to the chassis more than non bull bar impact.


The bull bar isn't an armour. Its mostly bolted on by 4 bolts. It isn't exactly as strong as it feels. So in case of a massive shunt, it breaks / bends. The crumple zones anyway take the blow. I hope we are talking about the bull bars seen on Sumos & Scorpios & not any military spec bars seen on USMC Humvees

Yup, right, but even if it bends completely giving way to the crumple zones, they are still attached to the chassis at the bottom. So, they keep transferring the impact inside, and 'diverting the energy of the impact to wrong places' (The words in quotes is by .anshuman:http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/techni...ash-guard.html)

Originally Posted by Reinhard

Agreed. But I'd rather have that decision to myself. I'd want to decide which way I want to go. Not dictated by the government with a ban.

In a sense, you may be right. After all, its your life, hence your take. But with India finding its name at the top of the road accident casualties and every time we keep on blaming the Govt. for poor infrastructure, bad safety, etc, I think the problem lies within ourselves to a large extent. 3-4 people on a two wheeler, no helmets, 'earphoned' ears: these all are not at all rare sights in India, hence I think some things need to be forced, rather than keeping them optional to the user. Just like the seat belts. Only because we (most of the people around) are not MATURED enough to be on roads. After all, the bad statistics need to be answered by the authorities, hence IMO, they are right in imposing the safety rules on us. Its anyway for our & our loved ones betterment.

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by saket77

Yup, right, but even if it bends completely giving way to the crumple zones, they are still attached to the chassis at the bottom. So, they keep transferring the impact inside.





In a sense, you may be right. After all, its your life, hence your take. But with India finding its name at the top of the road accident casualties and every time we keep on blaming the Govt. for poor infrastructure, bad safety, etc, I think the problem lies within ourselves to a large extent. 3-4 people on a two wheeler, no helmets, 'earphoned' ears: these all are not at all rare sights in India, hence I think some things need to be forced, rather than keeping them optional to the user. Only because we (most of the people around) are not MATURED enough to be on roads. Just like the seat belts. After all, the bad statistics need to be answered by the authorities, hence IMO, they are right in imposing the safety rules on us. Its anyway for our & our loved ones betterment.

I've actually edited my post above a bit. You may have noticed by now.
As for the points you mentioned - aren't they all already banned? Yet they are not rare sights. So will banning the bull bar serve any purpose? You are bang on when you said the problem lies within.

When the people themselves do not have the sensitivity, does a rule make a difference? Its us who discuss these points on thbp. Not many would care much at all!

So I'll park the bull bars from my side & try to find another points worth adding to safety list over my lunch!

[bblost]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

I've been thinking about this one since long. But I don't think the decision is as simple as black and white. Bull-bars are mainly a pedestrian safety issue. However, they do serve a good purpose against unguided missiles (aka rash bikers & rikshaws) and protect headlamps, grilles and bumpers. In a scenario where I'm not at fault, the bull bar / guard saving these parts which cost thousands to replace is useful.

They are mostly installed on larger SUVs. In which case (please don't take me wrong or think I'm satan) a hit from the SUV without the bull bar will still be significantly injurious to a pedestrian. A ban on them won't exactly serve a 100% justifiable purpose.

If there is no bull bar a pedestrian will be hit by a plastic deforming and impact absorbing bumper or a metal crumpling bonnet.

The bull bar is the equivalent of taking a metal rod and hitting someone with extreme force.

Bull Bars kill pedestrians.

[saket77]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

I've actually edited my post above a bit. You may have noticed by now.
As for the points you mentioned - aren't they all already banned? Yet they are not rare sights. So will banning the bull bar serve any purpose? You are bang on when you said the problem lies within.

When the people themselves do not have the sensitivity, does a rule make a difference? Its us who discuss these points on thbp. Not many would care much at all!

So I'll park the bull bars from my side & try to find another points worth adding to safety list over my lunch!

Appreciate your understanding Reinhard. Real Thumbs up to you! Since you have edited your post, in return I have edited the quoted part of your post too.

Regards,
Saket

[Reinhard]

Not something to be made mandatory, neither a direct safety equipment. However, I feel a dash-cam is a really good tool to have in car. Its pretty cheap (as low as 3k inclusive of all on ebay.in). The recording it does will certainly come handy in case of accidents to prove exactly what happened. Will be good to support insurance claims as well...
(OT - for a bit of fun with dash cam, you may want to search "russia car dash cam" on youtube! )

Was just thinking of bull bars earlier and an image of GTO's MM with chrome bull bars "rush"ed to my mind

[gk01]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

Isn't this exactly what I said? Bull bars are an issue for pedestrian safety.

Your below statement confused me.

Originally Posted by Reinhard

They are mostly installed on larger SUVs. In which case (please don't take me wrong or think I'm satan) a hit from the SUV without the bull bar will still be significantly injurious to a pedestrian. A ban on them won't exactly serve a 100% justifiable purpose.

Thinking of it, why were they even called Bull-bars? As a protection against things Bull size? If that's the case they can be obliterated now, our roads no longer have space for humans, leave alone bulls

Originally Posted by Reinhard

Plastic & Glass parts = 50% max covered by insurance, Loss of NCB, deduction from IDV, hassles of repair, no insurance cover in case or minor damages where they deem replacement unnecessary. Time wasted in getting these things done. Think on it.

Plastic can be covered 100% depending on the package you chose.

I do agree on the hassles but rarely do things go without a compromise