[FlatOut]

Originally Posted by saket77

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

I really enjoy this sort of forum understanding and civility! A world which argues then wages war is one which goes backwards.

Originally Posted by bblost

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.

Yes, this is too true. Bullbars are nothing but a (sad) fashion.

Originally Posted by hocuspocus

WoW !!

What an informative and necessary thread.

Safety is a mixture of many things which include:

- physical characteristics(car)
- driving habits(subjective),
- road/weather/lighting conditions

In my view, here are few safety features which I can count on my tips which should be included in a car:

1. Disc Brakes/ABS with EBD/Airbags
2. Auto Door Lock / Unlock incase of accident
3. Auto Dim rear view mirror
4. Height adjustable Seatbelt with Pre-tensioners
5. Collapsible Steering and crumple zones
6. Wide set of tyres
7. Defogger for front/rear windscreens

Will add more as and when it comes to my mind.

Cheers

I think we should remember that disc brakes can fail as dramatically as any drum brake or human brain, as well as being far more susceptible to wet conditions.

Auto door lock-unlock? Think a set of good quality tyres in good condition makes more sense, just don't lock your doors.

As for the automatic rear view mirror, is your left arm really so tired? More switching off of the brain.

Good seatbelts make a lot of sense if you are going to stop quicker than your brakes can manage, as do 'safe' steering columns and bodies which crumple in a good way.

Wide set of tyres? Don't get this one, use the size recommended by the manufacturer and make sure they're not the cheapest. Wider than advised can mean very dangerous.

Windscreen demister - well, I'd put a good set of shock absorbers above this, but if some people are prepared to drive blind if they are too lazy to wipe condensation away then I suppose there is some sense in this.


Time and time again, people forget to use their BRAINS. That is what really saves lives and prevents accidents. In Britain at least, there is a paucity of driver education. Almost to a criminal extent, when you observe the amount of 'safety' built into modern cars.

[rohanjf]

Originally Posted by FlatOut

As for the automatic rear view mirror, is your left arm really so tired? More switching off of the brain.

I think hocuspocus has a point here. Most of the economy cars (hatchbacks) sold here do not have that option of switching to night view for IRVM. If a careless driver behind you is on high beam, then you have to fight it too, along with the high beams of oncoming vehicles. I once borrowed a friend's Ritz Vxi, but got delayed in returning it. So I had to drive to his house in the night. I had to completely turn the IRVM upwards, since I could not keep adjusting it based on the following cars' beam levels!

Originally Posted by FlatOut

Windscreen demister - well, I'd put a good set of shock absorbers above this, but if some people are prepared to drive blind if they are too lazy to wipe condensation away then I suppose there is some sense in this.

I think hocuspocus meant rear demister. I am sure 90% of the hatchbacks in India have no rear washer/wiper and demister. I'd never drive another such car again, especially not on long trips.

I remember a friend of mine who bought a used entry-level Scorpio and then drove to Mumbai from Bangalore. He was saying that he had to stop the car every hour to clean the rear windshield with water and cloth!

[EagleEye]

FlatOut sir, you seem to have really different ideas about technological improvements in cars. You seem to admonish features like auto-dimming, windscreen demister etc. saying that we should all use our brains instead.

What you should realize, instead, is that most accidents happen as a result of human error. Humans err, it's in our nature. Now please tell me one thing, will your brain be more likely to make an error when it has less things to worry about, or when it has a lot of things to control manually?

It stands to reason, therefore, that these features enable your brain to concentrate on less parameters compared to what it would have had to otherwise, enabling you to focus that much more on the road ahead of you.

Originally Posted by FlatOut

As for the automatic rear view mirror, is your left arm really so tired?

Further to what I've mentioned above, automatic dimming mirrors not only dim the mirror automatically when someone flashes their high beams at you from behind, but it also varies the amount of dimming based on the intensity of the light. This leads to much greater visibility in the rear field of vision than the 1-0 adjustment in the manual day-night mirrors.
I miss the same feature in my ORVMs.

Originally Posted by FlatOut

Good seatbelts make a lot of sense if you are going to stop quicker than your brakes can manage, as do 'safe' steering columns and bodies which crumple in a good way.

Good seatbelts with pre-tensioners and safe steering columns make a huge difference. Contrary to what you seem to be thinking, in an accident the car does not come to a halt due to brakes having been applied, but due to a collision. Have you forgotten?

Originally Posted by FlatOut

Windscreen demister - well, I'd put a good set of shock absorbers above this, but if some people are prepared to drive blind if they are too lazy to wipe condensation away then I suppose there is some sense in this.

Are you kidding me? You mean to say every time the front/rear windscreen mists up, we've to pull over and wipe it off?? Even if it keeps happening every 5 minutes??
I rest my case.

[FlatOut]

Originally Posted by EagleEye

FlatOut sir, you seem to have really different ideas about technological improvements in cars. You seem to admonish features like auto-dimming, windscreen demister etc. saying that we should all use our brains instead.

What you should realize, instead, is that most accidents happen as a result of human error. Humans err, it's in our nature. Now please tell me one thing, will your brain be more likely to make an error when it has less things to worry about, or when it has a lot of things to control manually?

It stands to reason, therefore, that these features enable your brain to concentrate on less parameters compared to what it would have had to otherwise, enabling you to focus that much more on the road ahead of you.

Good seatbelts with pre-tensioners and safe steering columns make a huge difference. Contrary to what you seem to be thinking, in an accident the car does not come to a halt due to brakes having been applied, but due to a collision. Have you forgotten?


Are you kidding me? You mean to say every time the front/rear windscreen mists up, we've to pull over and wipe it off?? Even if it keeps happening every 5 minutes??
I rest my case.

My dear EagleEye, I will address your misunderstandings of what I said last of all.

First of, we do agree that driver concentration is paramount. I would add that vehicle ergonomics and active safety are also paramount. New technology means many things are possible, whether or not it is a good thing. I see a danger that because it is possible, manufacturers are unable to leave it out if others offer it, no matter how daft.

When technology works seamlessly without distracting the driver or impairing his judgement at all, it has to be good. There are some situations where the human brain is the best judge of when to do something and a tech application which mis-judges - even only slightly - can be a distraction. If the operation can be carried out manually by the driver with no mental or physical distraction to the driving then why create extra complication in the car? Self-parking and intermittent wipers are good, auto-on wipers can fail to come on at the right moment and so for me are potentially distracting.

There is the other issue of at what point does a driver start to lose concentration through lack of involvement and the resulting boredom? Today's cars handle well even with a driver who has no appreciation of mass distribution, tyre loadings or road friction, brakes are repeatedly powerful, steering is largely unaffected by suspension articulation, cabin temperatures are held steady no matter what the temperature outside, mechanical noise is absent at 90mph/140kph, the engine will not overheat up a long steep incline, headlights switch themselves on and off automatically, you choose your music according to your mood... etc etc.
All there is left to do is steer, brake, indicate and accelerate. The driver couldn't be more removed from the world around him, cars have evolved into a luxurious sitting room. When you had to turn up the heater as the outside temperature fell, you were made aware that the outside temperature had dropped, which could alter the road grip. Today you have little idea of what it is like outside the cacoon of your own little controlled micro-climate, speed is a number on a dial, airbags are ready to explode and prevent you from harm should it all go wrong - this is in many ways a good thing, but is there a danger we are so removed from reality and so molly-coddled that we are lulled into a false sense of security and a stupor?

Should there be a robot arm to pick up a tissue and wipe your nose, scratch your bottom or slap your face to improve your concentration if your eagleeyes wander to a pretty girl or fail to check the mirrors every few seconds? I think this would make more sense than a computer to switch the wipers on and off.

I was encouraging people to question whether the manufacturers' sales blurb is really as imperative as many think - whether automatic locking doors, wide tyres and auto this that and the other is really more important than a well-designed car maintained in tip-top order. Manufacturers know that rather than fitting a quality set of shock absorbers - which would improve safety no end both actively and passively but which are expensive - there is more 'prestige' and profit in fitting the latest electronic gizmo like auto-on windscreen wipers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearing up misunderstanding: In my country, a front windscreen defogger is an electric element in the glass which allows the driver to set off on an icy morning perhaps 3 minutes before he otherwise would - and will perhaps be in such a haste that side windows and lights are not cleared of ice and snow, which is very dangerous. I see this all the time in Britain, the screen is cleared but because no effort has been involved on the driver's part, nothing else has been cleared. Dangerous. Ventilated air to the windscreen is common to all cars here, so once under way, a windscreen will not mist up. You/we are at cross-purposes, I was referring to a once-only windscreen clearing. A misted up rear window isn't ideal, but we have side mirrors, so rearward vision is still easy.
The point I was making was that rather than set off three minutes sooner in bad weather, to have a car in good mechanical condition/well designed makes more sense than electrical luxuries - and that luxuries such as a front screen defogging element may lead to laziness such as leaving lights and side windows blocked.

There is perhaps something lost in the English - I wasn't forgetting that in an accident you stop because you hit something. I said, "if you are going to stop quicker than your brakes can manage", - ie if you crash.

[arunphilip]

A very nice (but scary) article about the Alto K10 - http://www.carsafetyrules.com/alto-k...s-safety/0805/

I've always felt the 800s and Altos have pencil-thin A-pillars compared to today's contemporary cars, this seems to vindicate my thinking.

[bblost]

Originally Posted by arunphilip

A very nice (but scary) article about the Alto K10 - http://www.carsafetyrules.com/alto-k...s-safety/0805/

I've always felt the 800s and Altos have pencil-thin A-pillars compared to today's contemporary cars, this seems to vindicate my thinking.

European NCAP for Alto

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpyWR7x8gOo

Latin NCAP for Alto

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5sJNZYACog

Because our lives are not worth the same.

No wonder then at what I saw.

Originally Posted by bblost

I saw this Alto on the Service Road of the Hyderabad ORR. It was close to the Gachibowli Toll Gate.

Badly smashed up but I could not find any skid marks or damage to the road.
Some blood stains on the passenger seat.

No additional information.

Attachment 1051201

[saket77]

Originally Posted by bblost

European NCAP for Alto

Latin NCAP for Alto

Because our lives are not worth the same.

No wonder then at what I saw.

That is scary. BTW, how old is the Alto platform?

[arunphilip]

Originally Posted by saket77

That is scary. BTW, how old is the Alto platform?

Well, isn't it 30 years now? The 800 launched around 1983-84 in India. The 800 launched with novel safety for its time - including a steering rack that folded away upon frontal impact, instead of hitting your chest.

Safety standards have evolved in these 3 decades, that platform hasn't.

[Thilak29]

On a side note,Only Six of 12 small cars do well in front crash tests

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/...#ixzz2bNn2YF1t

[amolbh]

I don't know what to say about this. Start watching from 3:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVOuaFKzCHA

[a4anurag]

Originally Posted by arunphilip

A very nice (but scary) article about the Alto K10. I've always felt the 800s and Altos have pencil-thin A-pillars compared to today's contemporary cars, this seems to vindicate my thinking.

Originally Posted by bblost

Because our lives are not worth the same.

No wonder then at what I saw.

Originally Posted by saket77

That is scary.

In addition to the Alto K-10 crash test, I found this article on ET while browsing.

Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/24628223.cms

Why most small Indian cars score poorly on safety

This August, when Alto K10, India’s second-largest selling car, recently scored 0 out of 5 stars on overall safety in South America, it was as much a comment on the attitude of Indian car buyers to safety: third priority. First comes the vehicle itself.

Second come frills like bluetooth and central locking. And third come safety features like airbags and anti-lock braking systems (ABS), which are essential in developed markets but optional in developing ones like India and South America.

When given that option, as is the case in small cars, most Indian buyers choose not to exercise it — ABS and air bags add 8-10% to the price of a Rs 5 lakh car. According to a Frost & Sullivan study, while 55% of passenger vehicles sold in 2012-13 in India had power windows, only 28% had air bags.

Buyers are more interested in “bells and whistles”, says CV Raman, R&D head of Maruti Suzuki, India’s largest car manufacturer and the maker of Alto K10.

For manufacturers like Maruti, it’s a Catch-22 situation. They want to make their cars safer, but they fear losing buyers to rivals if they turn safety features like ABS into essentials. So, they try to balance safety and sales.

Others argue for another kind of balance. In India, according to the World Health Organisation, twice as many people die on two-wheelers and three-wheelers than on four-wheelers.



The Middle Road

For now, manufacturers are taking the middle road. They are making safety features essential on high-end cars and top-end variants, but leaving it to the buyer in entry-level ones. “Customers prefer the mid variant—which is cheaper by up to Rs 40,000 —to the top variant, and then equip them with comfort and convenient features instead of safety features,” says Raman.

Maruti has seen the share of its top-end variants, with all safety features, in its sales decline from 20% to 5% in the last few years. Toyota is seeing a similar trend.

Occupant safety is assessed by conducting a full frontal crash at 48 km per hour. In Europe and the US, this test is conducted at 56 km per hour.

Developed markets like the US and Europe also insist on features that address side and rear impact, roll overs, pedestrian and electronic stability protection. In India, frontal or side impact tests are neither compulsory nor regulated.

Changing Attitudes

According to Rajan Wadhera, head of R&D at Mahindra & Mahindra, this attitude has to change, through imaginative solutions. “There is a moral and social responsibility to provide safety at an affordable cost,” he says.

“This can happen with extensive localisation and economies of scale. At present, this is a challenge. But necessity is the mother of invention, and we should rise to the challenge and deliver at the earliest.” A popular thought is that instead of offering cars with ‘safety as a feature’, companies should promote ‘safety as a necessity’.

A Tata Motors spokesperson says awareness is growing, but “it must be looked at in a holistic fashion to include active safety like avoiding accident/damage, wearing seat belts and passive safety like reducing impact and road behaviour.”

Anurag.

[amolbh]

Originally Posted by saket77

That is scary. BTW, how old is the Alto platform?

Originally Posted by arunphilip

Well, isn't it 30 years now? The 800 launched around 1983-84 in India. The 800 launched with novel safety for its time - including a steering rack that folded away upon frontal impact, instead of hitting your chest.

Safety standards have evolved in these 3 decades, that platform hasn't.

I think the Alto platform was always safer than the rest of Suzuki's cars, since it was primarily meant for exports. Even the Maruti Alto F8 scores decently in the Euro crash Test.

The problem was Maruti tinkering with the platform to fit the K10 motor.
The A-Star is based on the shortened 1st gen Swift platform (IIRC).

Check the video I posted above (Suzuki Alto == 2nd gen Maruti 800)

[nd4$pd]

Not to resurrect an old thread, but I am concerned about the direction automakers are taking with respect to safety. While every one is going ga ga over the 4th gen Honda City, I was saddened to see the E and S variants have dropped passenger airbags (compared to 3rd gen). The new Hyundai Verna SX(O) variant has similarly dropped airbags in favor of trinkets like LED running lights etc.

This is an alarming trend to say the least.

[a4anurag]

Originally Posted by nd4$pd

Not to resurrect an old thread, but I am concerned about the direction automakers are taking with respect to safety. While every one is going ga ga over the 4th gen Honda City, I was saddened to see the E and S variants have dropped passenger airbags (compared to 3rd gen). The new Hyundai Verna SX(O) variant has similarly dropped airbags in favor of trinkets like LED running lights etc.

This is an alarming trend to say the least.

Alarming indeed but the truth,

There are all safety features available in top ebbs variant of EVERY car sold in India but why are people running after the lower and mid variants, why are they not buying the high end variants?

Affordability and Awareness are the things creating such conditions.

Anurag.

[nd4$pd]

Originally Posted by a4anurag

Alarming indeed but the truth,

There are all safety features available in top ebbs variant of EVERY car sold in India but why are people running after the lower and mid variants, why are they not buying the high end variants?

Affordability and Awareness are the things creating such conditions.

Anurag.

The 3rd gen Honda City had the exact same safety features across variants (same number of airbags, ABS, EBD etc.). The differences between the Corporate edition and the V variant were gadgets, chrome, leather etc.

The corporate edition (and even the E variant) was a lot more affordable and competed more with premium hatchbacks and C1 sedans than C2 sedans.

There are ways to make safety affordable.

But you are absolutely right that without awareness (which in turn creates demand) safety takes a back seat.