[saket77]

Indian roads see one of the highest numbers of road casualties in the world. Even in this sorry scenario, what is most shocking to see is that we, Indians, when on the lookout for new cars in the showroom or even while researching on the internet, tend to miss out the most important aspect related to ourselves: Our own safety!

We look for staggering torque figures, 0-100 sprint timings, unbelievable numbers denoting powers of adult horses, but seldom have we known the braking efficiency of a car like 100-0 or 60-0; that’s a harsh fact. Similarly, how often do we frankly look for the construction of the car, its robustness, crash worthiness and other safety features? Moreover, we are given what we want from the manufacturers: compromised safety as compared to standards elsewhere in the world even on same cars. Hardly are we let known of the crashworthiness of cars sold in India.

All this said, admittedly, the situation is not always grim. I am really happy to see some really informed masses on Teambhp & many times the population minus Teambhp on this aspect, who are willing to shed those extra bucks for the ABS, EBD, airbags, et al.

I am not sure even if ARAI gives the information to the car buyers about the safety aspect of the car.

Hence, I wish to start a discussion on this thread focusing on the aspect of crashworthiness of cars and their safety, not only for helping people who wish to add one more ‘must have feature’ to their wishlist but also to generate awareness among the readers about it.

Pointers that will help up turn on this discussion towards the right direction (your opinion in adding pointers to this list are highly valuable):

1. Body Construction Type: Structural
2. General Build in terms of robustness
3. Seat belts construction mechanism
4. Crumple Zones
5. EURO NCAP/ ARAI*/ Any other recognized crash facility testing report
6. Braking System: general efficiency, ABS, EBD
7. Airbags/ SRS
8. Tyres
9. Any other safety features that you think are worth mentioning, however tenuous it might be.

So members, please pour in your knowledge about various cars on this aspect and help us build a thread which will facilitate sorting information on one more important aspect while choosing our next car: Safety.

Thanks,
Saket

[Shiv_1984]

Saket, That's a nice initiative.

I have a Brio s(o) MT with Airbags and ABS which i am happy about. This was the main criteria which kept me away from Swift and Ritz as Brio would have offered me maximum value for money on safety aspect.

But what disturbes me most is the rear crumple zone. I am not sure about this but may be folks owning Brios can comment more. Is it really worrysome?

Barring Europeans, i dont think Marutis and Hyundais really bother much on build quality and safety aspect.
Kudos to Honda for being the only compay which gives ABS and Airbags as standard for all variants (Except Brio).

Thanks!

[para_7k]

The fundamental issue is that these safety features are available only in top variants. I do not see any reason for this.

I, for one would ignore Climate Control, Blue tooth, even Integrated audio for ABS and Airbags.

If we have say an LXi variant with ABS and Airbags, most of us can buy one.

[EagleEye]

There is one section of the market who are 'safe drivers': "I always drive below 60 kmph, so I don't need these features".

And there is another section who are 'expert drivers': "I have been driving for so many years, the car and I have become one so I don't need these features".

The fact is that the Indian market is not aware of the safety features available to cars. People think that ABS and airbags are luxuries that can be done without. They don't understand that in wet conditions a car can skid under hard braking at 40 kmph or 120 kmph. They don't understand that what ABS does it to ensure that wheels don't skid and that steering control is maintained.

With regard to ABS, I have tried to talk to many of my colleagues and educate them about its importance. I hope I have been able to get through to at least a few of them. What I do not understand is why the government does not make ABS mandatory for all passenger cars like it has done for commercial vehicles.

[julupani]

Originally Posted by EagleEye

What I do not understand is why the government does not make ABS mandatory for all passenger cars like it has done for commercial vehicles.

Well, that is difficult to do because safety features do cost money. Making such features mandatory will have an effect on the prices and thus on overall sales. And if you see, the Indian automotive and automotive component industry is a major contributor to the Indian economy, and is heavily linked to a lot of other industries directly and indirectly. And at this point of time when the car makers are facing a huge down turn, along with the economy, economic constraints probably make such a decision a very very tough one.

Even in the commercial vehicle side if you see, it has only been taken for medium and heavy commercial vehicles only. Such vehicels sell only about 20 thousand units a month, at present level. Even at its highest it was probably selling around 35000 units. Also, per unit cost in this segment are mostly upward of Rs. 15lakh. Adding an ABS unit, does not have a big enough impact on the overall price, so as to impact demand significantly. Also a passenger car remains a sort of "luxury" item, economically speaking, while a commercial vehicle is not and thus reacts very differently to price changes.

[EagleEye]

Originally Posted by julupani

Well, that is difficult to do because safety features do cost money. Making such features mandatory will have an effect on the prices and thus on overall sales. And if you see, the Indian automotive and automotive component industry is a major contributor to the Indian economy, and is heavily linked to a lot of other industries directly and indirectly. And at this point of time when the car makers are facing a huge down turn, along with the economy, economic constraints probably make such a decision a very very tough one.

Even in the commercial vehicle side if you see, it has only been taken for medium and heavy commercial vehicles only. Such vehicels sell only about 20 thousand units a month, at present level. Even at its highest it was probably selling around 35000 units. Also, per unit cost in this segment are mostly upward of Rs. 15lakh. Adding an ABS unit, does not have a big enough impact on the overall price, so as to impact demand significantly. Also a passenger car remains a sort of "luxury" item, economically speaking, while a commercial vehicle is not and thus reacts very differently to price changes.

I agree with your viewpoint, but it is not sound policy to choose cost reduction over safety. If the government gives a tax rebate on cars that have ABS, then that would solve the problem as far as the cost impact causing downturns in the auto industry is concerned.

As it is, cars in India are some of the highest priced in the world. The same Toyota Corolla that costs 15-16 lakhs here can be had for about 4 lakhs in the Middle East (oh wait, you get the upgraded model for that price there). That should give you some perspective about the government's earnings on vehicles (excise, sales tax, octroi, road tax, etc. etc. etc.). If they can't forego a little bit of that to ensure safety of car users, then it's a major issue.

[julupani]

Originally Posted by EagleEye

I agree with your viewpoint, but it is not sound policy to choose cost reduction over safety. If the government gives a tax rebate on cars that have ABS, then that would solve the problem as far as the cost impact causing downturns in the auto industry is concerned.

As it is, cars in India are some of the highest priced in the world. The same Toyota Corolla that costs 15-16 lakhs here can be had for about 4 lakhs in the Middle East (oh wait, you get the upgraded model for that price there). That should give you some perspective about the government's earnings on vehicles (excise, sales tax, octroi, road tax, etc. etc. etc.). If they can't forego a little bit of that to ensure safety of car users, then it's a major issue.

Like I said, cars remain a luxury item here, and not one of necessity.

As for reducing tax on cars, that is an even crazier idea. Taxes on cars make up a massive chunk of the indirect taxes collected by the govt. Any reduction in taxes will have a huge effect on the govt's financial situation, and thus have a huge impact on the entire economy, especially the poorest section of the society. Let's not forget, we are still primarily a poor nation with a not very high HDI level.

And what exactly do you mean by a rebate on cars with ABS?? Do you mean to say that the govt should pay for people to have ABS on their cars?? I think the govt has far better uses for tax payer's money than paying to equip people's cars with ABS.

The only realistic govt regulation that can have a positive effect is the following: The govt can mandate that optional ABS and optional Airbags be made available on all cars and at all variant levels. Thus it will mean that every customer who wants to pay for airbags and ABS will have the option of picking up a model and variant combo of his or her choice, rather than being limited to buying the top variants of some cars.

Other than that, govt could fund, along with SIAM, certain ads on television channels, showing the advantages of equipping cars with ABS and also showing how much a positive effect just wearing a seat belt has on occupant safety. Probably every car manufacturer could be made to contribute a certain percent of its revenue so as to fund an extensive road safety education program.

Among other steps that could be taken is, ARAI can come up with a rating system on the lines of the NCAP system of Europe. At present, there is only a pass or fail regulation which is based largely in line with European safety regulations. But customers dont have a mechanism of choosing a more safe car. This will also make "safety" a more marketable commodity for car manufacturers, creating a competition among the manufactures so as to give the customer the safest car possible.

[FlatOut]

If it's any consolation, all cars available for sale which are available in the European market will have a good crash-absorbing structure. Going back just 20 years, many cars (for sale in Europe) were lethal in a impact - the buying public had yet to catch on to this 'feature'. It was the introduction and media publicising of the NCAP tests which slowly woke them up to the virtues of a safe car. The road manners of the cheaper makes has also improved beyond belief - back in the early 90s, Fords were truly nasty machines when compared with what they were turning out by the end of that decade.

It is interesting how these matters catch on - not very long ago in Britain, a car with a haze of burnt engine oil coming from the exhaust was quite common-place, today it would be very heavily frowned on and the car would fail its annual road-worthiness test. The attitudes to crash-worthiness have changed in a similar fashion. Yet even back in the 1950s, manufacturers like Saab and Citroën had considered both active and passive safety very carefully and were producing cars which were far safer than anything else around. By the 60s, Volvo and Mercedes saw safety as a major concern and were making big plays on the the importance of it in a car's design. Yet the masses chose to ignore the message, until there was official mass-testing which broadcast its results. Then people began to enjoy pointing out the least-safe cars on sale, manufacturers soon changed their tune.

I think Tata missed a major opportunity (one of several) when it launched the Nano. It would have made a small difference to the price to have included a driver's airbag as standard, but the positive publicity would have been huge if they had got the advertising right.

It's important to remember it is almost always the nut holding the steering wheel who causes an accident. Driver education seems to be a much-ignored safety approach the world over.

[EagleEye]

Originally Posted by julupani

Like I said, cars remain a luxury item here, and not one of necessity.

As for reducing tax on cars, that is an even crazier idea. Taxes on cars make up a massive chunk of the indirect taxes collected by the govt. Any reduction in taxes will have a huge effect on the govt's financial situation, and thus have a huge impact on the entire economy, especially the poorest section of the society. Let's not forget, we are still primarily a poor nation with a not very high HDI level.

And what exactly do you mean by a rebate on cars with ABS?? Do you mean to say that the govt should pay for people to have ABS on their cars?? I think the govt has far better uses for tax payer's money than paying to equip people's cars with ABS.

The only realistic govt regulation that can have a positive effect is the following: The govt can mandate that optional ABS and optional Airbags be made available on all cars and at all variant levels. Thus it will mean that every customer who wants to pay for airbags and ABS will have the option of picking up a model and variant combo of his or her choice, rather than being limited to buying the top variants of some cars.

Other than that, govt could fund, along with SIAM, certain ads on television channels, showing the advantages of equipping cars with ABS and also showing how much a positive effect just wearing a seat belt has on occupant safety. Probably every car manufacturer could be made to contribute a certain percent of its revenue so as to fund an extensive road safety education program.

Among other steps that could be taken is, ARAI can come up with a rating system on the lines of the NCAP system of Europe. At present, there is only a pass or fail regulation which is based largely in line with European safety regulations. But customers dont have a mechanism of choosing a more safe car. This will also make "safety" a more marketable commodity for car manufacturers, creating a competition among the manufactures so as to give the customer the safest car possible.

I mentioned lowering taxes on safety equipped cars as an example, not as the only solution.

If you say that the government can't make safety equipment mandatory because it would affect the economy, then let's just agree to disagree here.
It's the same train of thought as not having laws to ensure treatment of pollutants from industries before them being dumped into rivers, because of the "cost increment" and "global competitiveness".

Also, if you think about it, ABS is nothing but 4 sensors on each wheel connected by wires to a central unit that monitors the speeds of each. It is another matter that manufacturers make a big deal out of it and charge premium because firstly noone knows how simple it is, and secondly because the government does not mandate it.
To say that enforcing something like that in all cars would have dire consequences on the economy is silly, really.

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by EagleEye

I mentioned lowering taxes on safety equipped cars as an example, not as the only solution.

If you say that the government can't make safety equipment mandatory because it would affect the economy, then let's just agree to disagree here.
It's the same train of thought as not having laws to ensure treatment of pollutants from industries before them being dumped into rivers, because of the "cost increment" and "global competitiveness".
....

Absolutely agree with you. Also, when it is mandatory, the orders for ABS units to suppliers will multiply exponentially, and its about time the industry started pushing for lower rates for bulk orders - to pass on some portion the benefit to the customer.

Funny as it may sound in India, the government is supposed to look after public's safety, not the profits of enterprises. If price increase is unavoidable for cars then so be it. If I cannot afford a car with ABS, I'd rather travel by other means than skidding off road during emergency braking. It might get down to life in such cases, and life over luxury for me.

In an ideal world, the government should dictate rules and companies should follow. Sadly in our part of the world, the logic is reversed.

[saket77]

Thanks people for taking the discussion forward.
What about the crashworthiness of Indian cars? Some cars like Swift, i20, etc. which have been rated 5 stars by NCAP after crash testing. Though the Indian versions lack some toys as compared to the European Versions, mostly the airbags, how do you guys see this in the context of Indian safety? Can these cars be really considered as 'safe' in their stock form in Indian market? I agree that the term safe is just relative to the competition and not absolute. No car can save more than good luck when it crashes at a speed of 140KMPH.

Are there any structural differences between the cars sold in Europe and offered in India too, like the Swift? Also, I read in a report that Tata Nano was awarded a 5 star safety rating by NCAP! But the tests were done with little leniency, I believe. If someone wants to have small read about it, its here: http://www.atzonline.com/index.php;d...loc=1/id=10083

Are all NCAP crash tests carried after making some modifications to the stock cars? If yes, should it not be like that a car from the production line be picked up which is not at all different from what the people will ACTUALLY drive on the road?

Thanks,
Saket

[Reinhard]

I agree. In fact every other i20 on the road has this sticker on its rear glass "Awarded 5* in Euro NCAP". Does that mean this car is built to the same specifications that got the 5* ? I'm not accusing, It may actually be so. Just wondering what the truth is.

Shouldn't ARAI have its own tests with published results? They may already be doing it, but the results should be more transparent. Should we really use the NCAP as a benchmark for our conditions blindly? Those test obviously must be taking road and other variables into consideration? Those variables in our conditions definitely have different values. The car sold on OUR road has to be subjected to tests & rated. Not sold advertising 5 NCAP stars using a different spec. car.

[FlatOut]

Originally Posted by saket77

Though the Indian versions lack some toys as compared to the European Versions, mostly the airbags, how do you guys see this in the context of Indian safety? Can these cars be really considered as 'safe' in their stock form in Indian market?

Thanks,
Saket

Obviously airbags will help minimise driver and passenger injuries, but the structure of the cars is still the same. One of the biggest safety factors in a crash, providing the car doesn't totally crumple up, is distance between you and the impact and how much unfilled space there is in this gap. Which is why modern cars have all become so big so quickly - a lot of it is to place a distance between the car's extremities and the occupants.

Cars have also become increasingly heavy in recent years also, something which isn't good in trying to avoid an accident - active safety. It also results in a car having to absorb a lot more energy when it hits something. Emissions rules and concentration on economy with rising fuel prices mean that at last cars are beginning to try to reverse that trend, see the latest VW Golf and its derivatives for a indication of this.

Active safety has taken a backseat in the safety race - ABS is one of the few advances but even that doesn't totally make up for poor brakes or poor suspension. See this link http://www.cats-citroen.net/citroen_...ingsafety.html for how a 60 year old design outperformed a modern VW in controlled conditions.

A car which makes you lose concentration is dangerous. A car which doesn't indicate its speed accurately is dangerous - this is an art when you also make a relaxing car and one which hardly anyone manages today. Rubbery controls - a result of excess rubber bushing everywhere - is one way of makng a car boring and unrewarding to drive.

One which alters its behaviour significantly from dry roads to wet roads, or from unladen to laden state is dangerous. So is a car which suddenly loises grip or demonstrates a willingness to slide it back end first, especially if this is with little warning.

Add lots of safety features to a vehicle and it has been shown that a driver will still drive to a similar level of risk - so he or she may start to drive closer to the car in front, drive faster, overtake more dangerously etc. If you think the car electronics can get you out of a skid on a slippery corner, you may not slow as much as usual - you may even wish to try out the manufacturer's claim. None of these things can re-write the laws of physics.

A safe car is one which feeds accurate information to the driver without tiring him. One which is comfortable and in which the engine doesn't tire, either consciously or sub-consciously. Where brakes operate in a linear fashion and which may be easily applied right up to the point of wheel lock without the wheels stopping. Steering should need as little correcting as possible. But above all else, a driver should feel happy, enjoy his car and be aware of its shortcomings and limits.

[Shiv_1984]

Originally Posted by julupani

Well, that is difficult to do because safety features do cost money. Making such features mandatory will have an effect on the prices and thus on overall sales. And if you see, the Indian automotive and automotive component industry is a major contributor to the Indian economy, and is heavily linked to a lot of other industries directly and indirectly. And at this point of time when the car makers are facing a huge down turn, along with the economy, economic constraints probably make such a decision a very very tough one.

Well, I agree with you on the cost implications, there is something beyond it too, and that is human safety even if it costs some extra bucks.

If you aren't aware, till 1950s, in Europe there were only 1000 car owners who reported to be using Seat Belts while almost 90% of them ripped them away from their cars finding it as a unnecessary.

Today Seat Belts are the most commonly used safety device and save around 10000 lives every year in U.S and 40000 lives in Europe and U.K combined.

What I am trying to say is, sometimes awareness alone doesn't work, enforcement does. We Indians have always given human life less importance and that is the reason for us to go for less safe cars to save some bucks. If ABS is made mandatory, can you image how many accidents can be prohibited?

[EagleEye]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

Absolutely agree with you.

....

Funny as it may sound in India, the government is supposed to look after public's safety, not the profits of enterprises. If price increase is unavoidable for cars then so be it. If I cannot afford a car with ABS, I'd rather travel by other means than skidding off road during emergency braking. It might get down to life in such cases, and life over luxury for me.

In an ideal world, the government should dictate rules and companies should follow. Sadly in our part of the world, the logic is reversed.

Thank you! My point exactly. In our country the government is firstly blatantly inefficient, and add to that, we are not even demanding from them what is absolutely necessary.

Originally Posted by FlatOut

ctive safety has taken a backseat in the safety race - ABS is one of the few advances but even that doesn't totally make up for poor brakes or poor suspension.

True. ABS by itself cannot guarantee safety. But ABS+ESP (Electronic Stability Program) together can help a lot to reduce accidents. Of course, it still cannot bend the laws of physics so driver intelligence is still important.
Regarding poor brakes and suspension, it goes without saying that critical components of car safety have to be in good condition at all times.

Originally Posted by FlatOut

Add lots of safety features to a vehicle and it has been shown that a driver will still drive to a similar level of risk - so he or she may start to drive closer to the car in front, drive faster, overtake more dangerously etc. If you think the car electronics can get you out of a skid on a slippery corner, you may not slow as much as usual - you may even wish to try out the manufacturer's claim. None of these things can re-write the laws of physics.

This is a very valid point. As an example I drive faster than I should on wet roads knowing that my car has ABS and ESP. But hopefully the speeds I'm doing don't fall into the 'unsafe' territory. That's just my point, actually - with safety technology you can drive more confidently, and if some idiot decides to jump in front of your car (which almost consistently happens on every single road in India), you are equipped to handle it with the least risk of accident.

Originally Posted by Shiv_1984

Well, I agree with you on the cost implications, there is something beyond it too, and that is human safety even if it costs some extra bucks.

...
What I am trying to say is, sometimes awareness alone doesn't work, enforcement does. We Indians have always given human life less importance and that is the reason for us to go for less safe cars to save some bucks. If ABS is made mandatory, can you image how many accidents can be prohibited?

Excellent point. Most Indians are penny wise, pound foolish when it comes to these things so enforcement of certain features would go a long way.