[Geo_Ipe]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

IIRC, quite some time back, when Mr. Suzuki came to India, he refused to ride along in one of his own cars. A MB was arranged!

Kudos to Ratan Tata who used an Indica as his daily drive!
(So I've heard)

[Contrapunto]

A big culprit here is the government, who considers cars to be a luxury, no matter the abysmal state of public transport and taxes it to death, increasing costs for the final consumer. Its also partly responsible for the distorted insurance market which still does not adequately compensate safer cars and safer drivers with lower premiums from the point of purchase itself. But the biggest culprit are us, the buying consumers, who select a non-ABS, non-airbag model just because its 50k or so cheaper, and spend that money in leather seats, alloy wheels, fancy ICE et al. Its all about how much value we place on our own lives, and on the lives of our near and dear ones that will determine the safety profile of cars in India.

Unfortunate, hard, but I think sadly true....

[RSR]

Originally Posted by Geo_Ipe

Kudos to Ratan Tata who used an Indica as his daily drive!
(So I've heard)

I believe it was the station wagon version of the car, the Indigo Marina, which he used as one of his everyday cars. He had the rear seats (and the parcel tray) removed so his pet dogs could comfortably sit/lie down there and enjoy the drive as well.

[kiku007]

Originally Posted by giri1.8

I think there is no point in bashing any car company here, car makers will give us what we demand!

A-star has decent safety rating but failed due to the price tag. Making a car safe needs lot of investment which must be passed on to the customer who rejects it completely, thinking they will never crash. I want to replace my sedan with a decent petrol hatch(used) with safety features, but market is flooded with fuel efficient unsafe cars(ABS and airbags are ALWAYS given a miss if they are optional). This shows peoples attitude towards safety while purchasing a car.

Market perception on safety features and the buying capacity of the target customer aside, it is highly deplorable that an international car maker, India's largest car maker, Maruti Suzuki was just being greedy, unmindful and irresponsible in plonking a more powerful engine in an old and ageing platform with no thoughts whatsoever on the safety aspect.

This crash test proves nothing and it isn't going to change anything.

We've anyways hit new lows in this country with the upcoming Bajaj quadracycle or whatever it is. I see some people supporting it in a different thread. Should some African country crash test and report until we claim ignorance?

[misquitas]

Great thread on road safety in general.

Keeping aside the Alto K10 for a moment, this topic is really an eye-opener and various members have, so far, identified different factors for the failure to ensure safer cars.

A. Some have blamed automobile manufacturers for skimping on safety.
B. Some have the government for skimping on regulations dealing with safety.
C. Some have blamed the customers for skimping on the importance of safety.

Automobile manufacturers...

* Would claim that its vehicles are inherently safer than two-wheelers and rickshaws, which are among the most widely used forms of transport here in India.
* Would argue that many customers still consider safety a 'desirable' and not 'essential' feature here in India and hence, customers are more than willing to opt for lower variants with poorer safety features.
* Would claim that adding all the safety features would only escalate the price tag of the car, making it unaffordable for many families planning upgrade from a two-wheeler for precisely the same (safety) reason.

The government...

* Would state that nothing prevents car manufacturers from providing more safety features on ALL variants of their cars (Eg: The Jazz had many safety features even on its basic variant).
* Would claim that car manufacturers may themselves oppose any plans to enforce stricter norms on grounds that it could further affect declining sales.
* Would hint that poorer car sales would lead to more direct and indirect job cuts and more job cuts would further affect our economy.

The customers...

* Would argue that road safety is also dependent on better conditions of roads. For instance, many two-wheeler motorists, who are resisting the use of helmets here in Goa, have claimed that pot-holed roads and inadequate signboards have also contributed equally to road mishaps.
* Would argue that they should not be blamed for opting for those cars with lower levels of safety, simply because such cars are available in the first place. For example, when BSIII cars were phased out in some cities, people were forced to buy BSIV cars, whether they liked it or not.


Obviously, someone will have to make a start towards safer transportation somewhere and at sometime. Are all stakeholders willing to resolve this issue together or will there be a further finger-pointing exercise?

[raj_5004]

Originally Posted by CARDEEP

One of a leading Indian manufacturer is making hay because of the same attitude of Indians, where they dish out roadworthy vehicles every couple of years just to add their bank balances. In fact, their leading product earned the following comments when they went out:

The testing authority noted: "The passenger compartment lost structural integrity. Protection from serious leg injury was poor for the driver due to excessive rearward movement of the brake pedal."

I understand you are talking about the XUV5OO. Such comments can be noted in most cases mate, not just the XUV5OO.

Apart from the leg injury, the car has a 4* rating. Though not great, it is a decent score.

[Mpower]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

If I were to slightly change the looks of the 800 altering the front bumpers without touching the basic platform, it doesn't take an Einstein to understand that it will meet the same fate as far safety is concerned. Secondly in all these test reviews we never even raised a question mark on the safety choosing to glorify instead the performance aspect which basically is a result of the bare basic light platform poor on safety.

Same fate? Was the M800 tested or do you have info on how it performed?

2ndly Alto is completely different platform from the 800. Only thing c/o was the engine from the M800 5sp

Secondly in all these test reviews we never even raised a question mark on the safety choosing to glorify instead the performance aspect which basically is a result of the bare basic light platform poor on safety

We report on positives AND negatives of a particular vehicle as part of the review.

The performance was praised because it was a huge improvement over the Alto800 thanks to the K10 engine.

The safety or crash performance would be pretty much unchanged from the (then) Alto800 & which was unknown at the time.

2ndly, If you had the foresight about its safety, then you should've spoken up right then. We are all gifted with hindsight.

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Cut the emotional reactions please.

@Mpower: Only handling is mentioned, and that too - the understeer from an enthusiast's POV. No references to airbag/ ABS. Now lets move on?

Neither is emotional, but thanks!

If its not available, then there's really nothing to mention. It would going into pages if one tried to list out everything that it not offered, like no-ESP, No rear-discs, No auto-dimmer, No side-air-bag etc etc

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by Mpower

Same fate? Was the M800 tested or do you have info on how it performed?

Oh my. I just took that as an example. Alto K10 is just reskinned Alto and if the latter wasn't good at safety, the former would not be as well.

Originally Posted by Mpower

We report on positives AND negatives of a particular vehicle as part of the review.

I am not questioning the review, all I am saying is that we ignored the safety aspect.

Originally Posted by Mpower

The performance was praised because it was a huge improvement over the Alto800 thanks to the K10 engine.

No question on improved performance. Again thats the not the point.

Originally Posted by Mpower

The safety or crash performance would be pretty much unchanged from the (then) Alto800 & which was unknown at the time.

Yes but we all knew it wasn't safe. So an even more powerful engine makes it even more unsafe because it goes faster.

Originally Posted by Mpower

2ndly, If you had the foresight about its safety, then you should've spoken up right then. We are all gifted with hindsight.

And get infracted?

[Mpower]

Sure people knew it wasn't good, but nobody knew how bad...so the only option was to guess. Neither Autocar/Overdrive...took a shot at it.
Like they say..ignorance is bliss

So an even more powerful engine makes it even more unsafe because it goes faster

Agreed, all they did was put one size bigger tires.

I am not questioning the review

OK I wasn't sure. Lets move on then

And get infracted?

For? saying Alto is unsafe?
Hope your are joking! Take a look at threads/reviews where healthy debates are common and members routinely take opposing views to the author with arguments supported by evidence or sound logic

[Hayek]

@Mpower, @extreme_torque; I think we are going off topic here. So lets cool things down.

I do agree that greater safety consciousness is needed amongst Indians (including T- BHPians). But before blaming manufacturers, we should look at our own attitudes. When the Alto came in, it was a car sold in Japan and Europe. I strongly doubt that Suzuki would have approved changes to the K10 which materially reduced crash safety if they intended to sell it outside India - but the Alto is a 10+ (edit:15+) year old design, and is unsafe by 2013 standards. The amazing thing is that Maruti keeps selling (and people keep buying) Omnis, which were unsafe even in 1988. Manufacturers will give us what we are willing to pay for. To Maruti's credit, they also give us safe and economical small cars like the ZX variants of the Swift.

Lets also recognise that even with the most safely designed cars, the most important safety factor is the "nut behind the wheel". Just yesterday, I saw someone driving his 520D on the JJ Flyover with a kid sticking his head out through the sun roof. I don't think the 8 air bags would be of much use if he crashed and his kid flew out of the car. We may crib about the lack of ABS and air bags - but studies have shown that better brakes make people brake later, and air bags are no use if seat belts are not worn. To this day, I get stares from friends when I insist that they wear the seat belt even when in the rear seat of my car - and have a major issue keeping my son in the back seat when his friends sometimes sit on their father's laps while they are driving.

[Mpower]

Sure, a typical buyer of an Alto is either buying his/her first car or migrating from a 2-wheeler.

So the first impression to them is that its a lot safer than a 2 wheeler.

Driven with caution within city limits one should be OK. In Bangalore's 7kph traffic it makes no difference.... but I wouldn't want to venture out on un-divided highways where head-on collision is a lurking danger

[petroguzzler]

I don't find these results amusing at all. The alto being a very old platform is bound to have a very poor crash safety rating. Another segment leader the Bolero would perform miserably if subjected to a crash test given that we already know the crash worthiness of the scorpio.

And I had read an article in ACI, wherein the pros and cons of owning cars that are discontinued globally where discussed. The Figo, Fiesta classic, Rexton, Etios (not sure which platform it is but my best guess is it is old) are classic examples of products which although may be good and offer value, would not match its more modern competition when it comes to crash safety. I was almost inclined to replace my niggling Vista with the Figo but dropped the idea due to the latter's questionable crash safety compared to the vista which is a more modern platform.
Another dangerous trend to observe is the concept of adding Airbags to cars that were not designed in the first place to accommodate them. The Scorpio, Alto 800(driver airbag) etc, would fare better in c crash without an airbag than with it. The mass market views airbags as magical safety devices. I wouldn't be surprised if i see an Ambassador with airbags.

I also am postponing my long term idea of a pre owned Tata Safari TCIC due to the questionable crash safety.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by Mpower

Neither is emotional, but thanks!

If its not available, then there's really nothing to mention. It would going into pages if one tried to list out everything that it not offered, like no-ESP, No rear-discs, No auto-dimmer, No side-air-bag etc etc

Don't tell both sides please. . You told those factors are mentioned in the reviews. I only pointed out nothing was mentioned in this particular review. (Understandable since it was one of the earlier ones). I'm not in for any more debates.

Anyways, is this LatinNCAP considered a universally accepted standard? If so, we could probably edit the review to include reference to the thread. Again, its just a suggestion- consider it if suitable.

[julupani]

Originally Posted by petroguzzler

... Bolero ....Scorpio....

....Figo, Fiesta classic, Rexton, Etios ..... Vista .....Tata Safari TCIC

Of all the vehicles you have mentioned its only the Bolero which can be severely bad.

I say so because:

1. Rexton, Vista, Scorpio, Safari either are or were sold in Europe. Thus they must have at least passed the safety norms, if not done great with respect to safety.

2. Figo and Fiesta Classic are basically based on the old Europen Fiesta/Focus platform which was being sold till the late 2000s.

3. Etios is a brand new platform developed for emerging markets like India, S.E Asia, parts of Africa and Latin America. Thus I hope that a company like Toyota would have at least paid some attention to crash worthiness while designing it.

Let me make it clear, I am not saying any of these cars would have given stellar performances in any crash tests. But they will probably meet certain basic level of crash worthiness.

[shreyan_k10]

Does just passing in test really matter? What difference does it make even if they manage to earn a few stars? They stand out to be potentially unsafe vehicles nonetheless. Moreover we can't assume things about which vehicle is safe and and which is not, regardless of whether they are sold in other countries or not, simply because we don't have crash tests done here in India. Even if it is done, I'm pretty sure the test version and production version would vary. It's India after all.