[Ricci]

Originally Posted by rajushank84

When will airbags be made mandatory?! The problem is, one manufacturer or two offering it as standard on all models won't work out, because the competition will just kill them by not making it mandatory (thereby offering the base car at a lower price).

Certain things have to come from the long arm of the law. If the laws don't exist, we can't blame the manufacturers since they are here for business.

Airbags can be made available for as little as INR6000, as quoted by a Bosch rep ; perhaps mentioned in this very thread earlier. I might be wrong, but I don't see much change in the prices of the Polo before and after the airbags as standard fitment revision.

Left to customers, airbags as standard fitment will take ages to reach. Sometimes, it is the government that must "what's good for us" mandatory - personally, I oppose that sort of thinking where others are unaffected, like helmets for two wheelers. I wear one, but I don't ask it to be made mandatory.

[GrammarNazi]

Originally Posted by rajushank84

...Certain things have to come from the long arm of the law. If the laws don't exist, we can't blame the manufacturers since they are here for business.

There's something called humanity bro.

We may ALL be here for business, but for humanity sake, when a product puts lives at stake, any decent person/brand doesn't wait for Government Regulations. They should've built it in themselves.

In any other sector, competition hasn't been allowed to leave the customers/users vulnerable to death when the rate of accidents AND the risk of death is SO high. This nonsense has happened only in the Auto sector.

[rajushank84]

Originally Posted by Ricci

Airbags can be made available for as little as INR6000, as quoted by a Bosch rep ; perhaps mentioned in this very thread earlier. I might be wrong, but I don't see much change in the prices of the Polo before and after the airbags as standard fitment revision.

Left to customers, airbags as standard fitment will take ages to reach. Sometimes, it is the government that must "what's good for us" mandatory - personally, I oppose that sort of thinking where others are unaffected, like helmets for two wheelers. I wear one, but I don't ask it to be made mandatory.

Polo is grossly overpriced to begin with, that could be one reason for very little price gap between airbag and non-airbag versions. I am especially looking at cars like base Indicas which taxi drivers tend to buy base models of. I don't see these cars ever getting airbags unless those cars aren't available without airbags.

IMHO the helmet issue is a whole different animal. (Flame suit on) in some of our hot cities wearing a helmet can be unbearable in the heat, and someone may (stupidly of course) choose not to wear one for a very short ride from say, house to main road (which I still wouldn't), so I am also personally against mandating it. But having airbags in the car or wearing a seatbelt certainly doesn't cause any discomfort, it shouldn't hurt anyone to make these mandatory.

Originally Posted by GrammarNazi

There's something called humanity bro.

We may ALL be here for business, but for humanity sake, when a product puts lives at stake, any decent person/brand doesn't wait for Government Regulations. They should've built it in themselves.

In any other sector, competition hasn't been allowed to leave the customers/users vulnerable to death when the rate of accidents AND the risk of death is SO high. This nonsense has happened only in the Auto sector.

Hmm unfortunately I don't think companies think that way, all the flowery salestalk notwothstanding.

[a4anurag]

Originally Posted by rajushank84

Certain things have to come from the long arm of the law. If the laws don't exist, we can't blame the manufacturers since they are here for business.

It is all a blame game Sir.

The manufacturer will tell my cars are complying with the Indian standards stated so why should I mandate any safety gadgets in all variants.

And if pressurised they say, "there is no such rule that exists in the MV Act that all variants should have safety includes." How do tout tackle such situations?!

Worst comments heard on safety features:

1) Drive slow, that is best, why ABS and Airbags.

2) We all drive at 40 kmph, why ABS at such speeds.

Originally Posted by rajushank84

But having airbags in the car or wearing a seatbelt certainly doesn't cause any discomfort, it shouldn't hurt anyone to make these mandatory.

Pardon me for asking this.

What logic is this of not mandating a helmet but mandating a seatbelt / airbag?

Helmets are for our safety and NOT for the law, it is good if it worm ALWAYS. I am not saying to wear an helmet for a very short ride but the daily commute that is done by the public, need helmets ma. It protects us from the environmental hazards, accidents.

When there is safety option available in the top end variant or as an option in the mid variant, or doesn't sell. All that sells is bare bones. Who is to be blamed? The manufacturer or the Government or the Public?

I'd say ALL three are equally to be blamed for this situation today.

Anurag.

[harpreetkanwar]

Originally Posted by Ricci

We have discussed this elsewhere, the whole point of structural engineering - that which we call crumple zones, are part of the monocoque chassis and not the skin (the thin sheet metal) you speak of. The sheet metal is supposed to be just the skin of the car, easily replaceable in case of damage.

I had used the example of Swift - it has been touted as a compromised because of the thin metal, but do we know for sure, it's less safe than say, a Figo, because of that alone ? Since the underlying crumple zones are supposed to absorb the energy of an impact. Now, granted for minor hits where the impact is not enough to smash through the skin, thicker gauge metal would be nicer, as it will resist dents more than thin panels.

Does anyone have the privileged access to ascertain, if export Swifts have thicker sheet metal than domestic market Swifts ?

Besides, there's only so much we can do within reasonable limits. After all, princess Diana was killed in a Mercedes Benz - arguably much safer than our regular cars , which are only tested at 64km/h. Even a BMW/MB/Audi cannot save you from a 160km/h crash.

No I agree the crumple zones, the way the shock's absorbed all come into play, but I guess some amount of strength is required in the skin/metal as well.. its true that there is no way to check the same in the exported cars. But a comparison among indian cars at least gives a nice picture. Having driven a swift and a polo i can vouch that everytime i've bumped into another vehicle/object - the swift's always got more damage than my Polo (touch wood), perhaps i've been luckier in the Polo - but in general the car has always always caused more damage to the other than itself, and yes the metal is way way too thick on the hood, fenders, etc. than the poorly built Swift (2010 model). in my personal experience that is.

and its true that even the luxury cars can't save u from a crash like u quoted the Diana incident. However I feel the odds are much better if u r in a safer -air bag equipped - car.

NOTE FROM T-BHP SUPPORT: Please avoid typing...like...this... Refer the Announcements and general-posting-etiquette before proceeding. Thanks.

[nijelj]

Read a news report that the india spec swift and Datsun go gets a 0 rating in Latin NCAP tests. Anyone got more info?

[zenren]

Originally Posted by nijelj

Read a news report that the india spec swift and Datsun go gets a 0 rating in Latin NCAP tests. Anyone got more info?

Swift and Datsun NCAP rating discussed here:

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...tests-too.html

[pvkm]

Of course we must have cars that pass NCAP or UN or other recognized crash test benchmarks. In fact, media reports suggest that airbags will become mandatory in India from Oct 2015.

But it is worth getting some perspective on the data in this debate.

The National Crime Records Bureau run by the Home ministry has data on accidental deaths in India and p13 of Chapter 1 has the breakup of road fatalities for the year 2012.

Of a total of 1,39,000 road fatalities in 2012, the major causes in decreasing order were: two-wheelers 23%, lorries 19%, cars, 10%, and buses 9.4%

Which means that about 14,000 people died in car crashes in India in 2012. This compares to 12,000 car crash fatalities in the US in the same year -- a country with far better road safety standards.

Just saying.

References:
India data: http://ncrb.nic.in/CD-ADSI-2012/acci...-deaths-11.pdf
US data: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811856.pdf

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by pvkm

Which means that about 14,000 people died in car crashes in India in 2012. This compares to 12,000 car crash fatalities in the US in the same year -- a country with far better road safety standards.

What you are ignoring in the above figure is the total number of cars plying on USA roads vs Indian roads. The overall % will then be much much more smaller for USA.

[reppy]

Originally Posted by GTO

P.S. These Global NCAP dudes should have taken along a Mahindra Bolero or Tata Sumo in these tests, especially one fitted with a mega after-market bullbar! That would have left them speechless. Significant body injury? Check. Possibility of death to driver / passengers? Very high. Pedestrian safety? Zero. Damage to vehicle? Absolutely, unbelievably & shockingly None

Read this post yesterday on the phone in my car, and looked up to see a Sumo Taxi park in the same parking - it had a custom made rear bull bar out of MS squares and angles, with really sharp edges sticking out! It could literally cut through someone's leg while reversing! Insane

[Rosso Corsa]

I don't know if this point has been discussed here before, but what about the fact that in developed countries, people get killed INSIDE cars, whilst in India, a majority of car related deaths are OUTSIDE cars. Isn't it high time we make traffic rules more strict, and create awareness about proper driving ?

As for Airbags and ABS, companies clearly don't want them since they will increase costs, reduce profits and more importantly - reduce the customer base. In a heavily price conscious economy, even a Rs 10,000 price hike can deter buyers. Car companies will lobby with the government over this, but I feel the government should put its foot down about safety, rather than bow down to the carmaker lobby.

[zenren]

Originally Posted by Rosso Corsa

As for Airbags and ABS, companies clearly don't want them since they will increase costs, reduce profits and more importantly - reduce the customer base. In a heavily price conscious economy, even a Rs 10,000 price hike can deter buyers.

That is the biggest nonsense I've heard from these guys. These companies say the car buyers cannot afford to pay an additional 25k for safety and hence would be stuck with 2-wheelers. However, these same people decide to increase the car prices at least once a year by 10-15k citing increased price of raw materials or some other similar reason.

When we purchased our Swift in 2008, the cost (VDi ABS) was 5.32 lakhs. Now it is 6.39 lakhs. That is more than 15000 hike per year on an average.

How can the common man suddenly afford the car if the 15k hike is due to raw materials cost increase?

[Rosso Corsa]

Originally Posted by zenren

That is the biggest nonsense I've heard from these guys. These companies say the car buyers cannot afford to pay an additional 25k for safety and hence would be stuck with 2-wheelers. However, these same people decide to increase the car prices at least once a year by 10-15k citing increased price of raw materials or some other similar reason.

When we purchased our Swift in 2008, the cost (VDi ABS) was 5.32 lakhs. Now it is 6.39 lakhs. That is more than 15000 hike per year on an average.

How can the common man suddenly afford the car if the 15k hike is due to raw materials cost increase?

Its a 50-50 situation. While they may be bluffing, you cannot ignore the Indian mindset of "Chalta hai". From an ignorant layman's POV, a car can very much function WITHOUT Airbags and ABS. So the stereotypical, price conscious Indian buyer feels that 25k is a "waste" since his car will ferry him from home to work even without these things ! His primary objective of commuting is not affected by these add-ons, so why would he "waste 25k extra" ?

Unless you educate people about how safety is important, they will always keep thinking of ABS/Airbags as "unnecessary expenses". The Indian perception of safety is heavily disillusioned by its compromising attitude.

[RavSam]

This video simulates what happens inside a car when it crashes in slow motion.
Worth a look.
Also a point that to be noted is not to have loosely kept objects inside the car cabin.

http://youtu.be/qJL8SdRCHfA

[mpksuhas]

Originally Posted by Rosso Corsa

While they may be bluffing, you cannot ignore the Indian mindset of "Chalta hai".
price conscious Indian buyer feels that 25k is a "waste" since his car will ferry him from home to work even without these things ! His primary objective of commuting is not affected by these add-ons, so why would he "waste 25k extra" ?

I agree to your point of view. Always believed that we Indians are not price conscious, rather look for value for money.

Though increasing the price may effect some fence sitters I don't think it will cause a dent in the overall sales as such. Price difference for adding ABS + Air bags as discussed in this thread will be only couple of thousand rupees.

The real issue car manufactures will face is if they are asked to take mandatory crash tests. This will be a tool for a better rated car maker to project against a lesser rated one, which may lead to equipping cars better for crash protection (structurally). I guess this may be the expensive part compared to adding couple of airbags and ABS.

Coming back to value for money proposition for safety kits. I would like to list out few points, based on my interaction with new car buyers.

• I don't need ABS, I drive only in city.
• Airbags are expensive to replace after deployment.
• Airbag replacement will not be effective. Once replaced, you can never be sure if it is effective (This was said by sales lady, when I was trying to convince my friend to go for Swift ZXI. The sales lady on her part was more worried if my friend will drop Swift plan entirely)
• Smaller cars does not require safety kit.
• Why waste money on that, will buy audio system and alloys instead.
• ABS?? It got music system.
• Hold a pillow and sit, you don't need airbag

This discussion was during difference instances which involved purchase of 4 cars.
All these comments are from well to do car buyers. Well, none of them blink an eye for spending 30K plus on mobile or 60K plus on LED TV's.

Now, should add all of them are first time car buyers upgrading from two-wheeler for varied reason - getting married, about to get married, becoming a parent etc.

In all the cases, though money is a concern it was not the only reason for dropping the safety kit. First, they did not find value in spending for the safety kit. And then, opting safety kit means you to put almost 10 - 15 % more, since you are opting for a higher variant.

However, after buying the Swift and some 15K KMS & 2 years one of my friend now plans to upgrade to a bigger vehicle. He now says ABS is mandatory for his next vehicle. Reason? He had a bad experience on highway when wheels of his Swif LDi locked on hard breaking. Lucky for him and other vehicle on road it did not result in an accident.

Hence I guess, government mandated safety feature list is fine. However along with that there should be awareness about the equipment.