[SS-Traveller]

And then again, why are Mr. Bhargava's supporters suddenly silent after the publication of this thread?

[4x4addict]

Originally Posted by SS-Traveller

And then again, why are Mr. Bhargava's supporters suddenly silent after the publication of this thread?

It amazes me that there are still people who question the benefit of ABS & air bags. People will fit a double DIN system on a swift LX without ABS for 30K but feel that adding safety features will make the car unaffordable.

[ringoism]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

On the whole, I still maintain that you overestimate the differences in Indian driving conditions. I too am not of Indian origin, and driven more km in UK than in India.

I've never driven in the UK so will have to acknowledge my personal driving/riding experiences are strictly limited, over these 30 years since I got my license, to the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Honduras, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Japan, the Phillipines, Curacao, the Bahamas (where they drive left-hand drive cars on the left side of the road!!!) France (alps and plains), Holland (north to south), Belgium, Luxemborg, Switzerland (mostly alps), and for that matter, New York City and Louisiana bayou country (which are not really parts of the U.S... ha, ha), besides whatever other places I've forgotten; and I'd have to say in retrospect that (strictly IMO), no, I'm not overestimating them.

But maybe Chennai is different now than I remember it on those visits a decade ago?

Originally Posted by ashlil

A statement like: "In my years in the subcontinent, I've seen a great many attempts to make the "solutions" - whether real or imagined - of other, sometimes excessively-admired nations work here; more often than not, these have failed, and often at great expense" is stereotypical as it implies that the subcontinent somehow loves to follow excessively-admired nations.

Here is another link: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/808206.pdf
Although, ABS increases run-off-the-road type accidents, it fares still better than ordinary brakes in other types of collisions. So, I think you are just picking and choosing the portion of the study that suits your line of argument.
Your logic above is self-destructing (i.e. I can use your logic and reach totally opposite conclusion). Why should I, in south Delhi, be put at risk by not mandating ABS, just because someone in Rohtang pass might slide off the road?

My statement above, as well as yours are logically incorrect. The correct way would be to take the study as a whole and see that ABS does provide statistically significant benefit (taking into considerations all types of crashes) and hence it should be on the cars.

You are being stereotypical. To be statistical, you will need lot more data than your neighbours and team-bhp (The correlations are extremely difficult to establish in statistics, especially for complex things like low-income and education level and safety awareness level).

I am saying let's make it mandatory for car makers to provide ABS/Airbag as option in all variants. SOMEONE who wants to buy the option pays for all that.

I claim that the auto companies are blaming the other causes of road accidents because it lets them off the hook. But, this line of argument leads us nowhere.

I think our apparent disagreement might disappear, and all the sort of unnecessary accusations about stereotyping and illogic with it, if we would understand that YOU are suggesting the government make the OPTION of additional high-tech safety equipment mandatory for every variant (which though it sounds reasonable, is not going to work market-wise, but anyway...), VS. the original question the Maruti chief was responding to, namely of its mandating fitment on every single new vehicle. These are two very different questions.

Right. There's no place really for logic or illogic anywhere here, re: the South Delhi vs. Rohtang question. I didn't try to use "logic", and OF COURSE I'm citing the part of the study which suits my argument: My argument - and I'm sure you cannot disagree with this - is that the subcontinent (just like the world around it) is a place of great diversity (landscape, climate, priorities, economics, educational level, etc), and that the needs represented by such diversity calls for a diversity of choice, rather than for cold, hard mandatory ANYTHING that is going to force some to accept solutions that don't work for a significant number of other people.

Since you're citing NHTSA, I'll include this:

"The (NHTSA) tests confirmed that ABS was highly effective in preventing yawing and allowing the driver to steer the car during panic braking. Stopping distances decreased substantially with four-wheel ABS on wet surfaces, but decreased only slightly on dry pavement and increased considerably on gravel.

ABS significantly reduced the involvements of passenger cars in multivehicle crashes on wet roads. ABS reduced police-reported crash involvements by an estimated 14 percent, and fatal involvements by 24 percent. The finding is consistent with the outstanding performance of ABS in stopping tests on wet roads.

Certain types of collision involvements on wet roads, such as striking another vehicle in the rear, or striking a stopped vehicle, were reduced by 40 percent or more. This benefit, however, was partially offset by an increased likelihood of being struck in the rear by another vehicle. The better your own braking capabilities, the more likely that a following vehicle with average braking capabilities will hit you.

ABS had little effect on multivehicle crashes on dry roads. The contrast in the results for wet roads and dry roads is consistent with findings in stopping tests, where ABS improved stopping distances and directional control substantially on wet surfaces, but much less so on dry surfaces.

The risk of fatal collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists was reduced by a statistically significant 27 percent in passenger cars with ABS. Unlike the effects for multivehicle crashes, this reduction was about equally large on wet and dry roads.


All types of run-off-road crashes - rollovers, side impacts with fixed objects and frontal impacts with fixed objects - increased significantly with ABS. Nonfatal run-off-road crashes increased by an estimated 19 percent, and fatal crashes by 28 percent.


Rollovers and side impacts with fixed objects - crashes that typically follow a complete loss of directional control - had the highest increases with ABS. Nonfatal crashes increased by 28 percent, and fatal crashes by 40 percent.


Frontal impacts with fixed objects, where the driver is more likely to have retained at least some directional control prior to impact, increased by about 15-20 percent, both nonfatal and fatal.


The negative effects of ABS on run-off-road crashes were about the same under wet and dry road conditions.


The reason for these negative effects is unknown. One possibility is that average drivers may at times steer improperly in panic situations. Because ABS preserves steering control under hard braking, cars may be swerving or heading off the road.


The observed effects of ABS on snowy or icy roads, while not statistically significant, were all similar to the effects on wet roads - i.e., positive for multivehicle collisions, negative for run-off-road crashes.


The overall, net effect of ABS on police-reported crashes (including multivehicle, pedestrian and run-off-road crashes) was close to zero."


(source:http://www.nhtsa.gov/CARS/rules/regr...te/808206.html

Where's the need for logic? Running off the road in the plains might be as little as a minor inconvenience. Running off it in the hills is often 100% deadly, and ABS systems apparently increase my risk of that by 28%. S. Delhi might not have its gravel, but I live on and frequent gravel roads, where my stopping distances are "significantly increased". So ABS may be a negative for many in similar conditions as mine. I'm not saying the S. Delhiite wouldn't benefit from ABS or that he shoudn't have it. Why would he say that I WOULD benefit from it (when it doesn't bear out statistically under my conditions / typical types of accidents / specific road risks) and that I SHOULD have it?

The point (again) is that CONTEXT is everything. Why shouldn't both of us be given the choice to decide what sort of vehicle suits us? And why shouldn't the rural population, which still numbers (statistically) the urban in India, be allowed to make their own decisions - informed or less informed - about what best suits their own, unique needs?

Still, you can call them stereotypes, I'll call them reasonable generalizations with obviously a number of exceptions. The generalizations can indeed to a large degree be supported statistically (see where there is functional 3G internet supporting the flow of information... see how many automobile owner's manuals are offered in regional languages... see what the 10th pass marks (or % of the population) are for the rural districts vs. S. Delhi... etc... and why is not tBhp membership significant, since that's going to be a lot more likely source of understanding re: ABS functionality than an already ineffective government licensing center would be, which is your proposal?).

I can assure you that digging up stats for the sake of our little argument here is not worth my time, so I'll stand on the simple observations of one (yours truly) who's lived / traveled / spent considerable time in both rural and urban environments in most regions / states of the union since 1999. If your experience in rural / urban India is distinct from that, you are certainly entitled to make your own generalizations, or not make them. Not saying I'm right and anyone else is wrong. Just saying that I've seen what I've seen in quite a lot of places. It's all in flux and the same might not hold true ten years from now. But the question is coming right now, no?

And ultimately I don't think we need to correlate anything anyway, it's all besides the point. What is a fact is that there is great diversity in India. There are rich and there are poor. Educated and uneducated. People who will benefit greatly from these features and those who will be killed by them. Doesn't matter where they live or what else they may or may not know, or what language they speak. Same shoe doesn't fit everyone, so don't try and force it on.

You're right that vehicle manufacturers can blame road conditions, etc, for their engineering failures (it happened with the newfangled Delhi Corp. buses a few years ago); but as has been acknowledged elsewhere in the thread, carmakers they actually make more money on models equipped with high-tech features - so as I (and others here rightly) see it, there is no reason that they don't want to fit them, except that they understand the fine nuances of their market demographics far better than anyone writing in this thread does. They know that feature-laden entry-level models - whose profits are already quite marginal - are not what MOST people want to buy. All stereotypes and faulty logic and ill-applied nationalism aside, it really is as simple as that.

If you find that it is your life's calling to create a new platform to educate the uninformed(rich, poor, rural, urban, whatever) car-buying public about how to properly operate an ABS/SRS-equipped vehicle, and also to push the government to pave (and regularly re-pave) each and every road, both urban and rural, and with strict regularity to clean any dust and gravel and banana / mango peels, cowdung (c'mon, anyone who's been riding a bike here awhile knows what I'm talking about!) and whatever other stuff might (similar to unpacked snow) throw off an ABS-system, and to do all you can to inject life into the rural economic systems in the poorer regions, then I'm sure that EVERYBODY would want all the safety features they could afford and more, and would, on credit (a wonderful North American feature), buy so-equipped cars by the zillions - because it would actually be likely to work wonders for them in one way or the other.

(Pretty sure I was truly stereotyping in that last bit...)

Regards.

-Eric

[Thad E Ginathom]

I've never driven in the UK so will have to acknowledge my personal driving/riding experiences are strictly limited, over these 30 years since I got my license, to the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Honduras, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Japan, the Phillipines, Curacao, the Bahamas (where they drive left-hand drive cars on the left side of the road!!!) France (alps and plains), Holland (north to south), Belgium, Luxemborg, Switzerland (mostly alps), and for that matter, New York City and Louisiana bayou country (which are not really parts of the U.S... ha, ha), besides whatever other places I've forgotten; and I'd have to say in retrospect that (strictly IMO), no, I'm not overestimating them.

So India should not, for some perceived-by-you-differences, have safer cars?

On some details, I agree. airbags, as has been stated several times, may kill passengers not properly secured, and probably will kill children on laps. Without education first, air bags are more of a danger than a safety aid.

Details aside, Mr Bhargava seems to think that it is not his job to provide safer cars, or, more particularly, not to provide cars that are at least as safe as the equivalent models that he supplies to other countries, unless the govt tells him he has to. In not too many words, what exactly do you think of that?

[ashlil]

Originally Posted by ringoism

I think our apparent disagreement might disappear, and all the sort of unnecessary accusations about stereotyping and illogic with it, if we would understand that YOU are suggesting the government make the OPTION of additional high-tech safety equipment mandatory for every variant (which though it sounds reasonable, is not going to work market-wise, but anyway...), VS. the original question the Maruti chief was responding to, namely of its mandating fitment on every single new vehicle. These are two very different questions.

Agreed. Two different issues. Let me clarify what I think of Maruti chief's statement. I think that statement is unscrupulous (and I am being generous) and I think so because of the following reasons:

1) His justification for selling structurally unstable cars is that they are safer than bikes. But, not long ago, he opposed introduction of quadricycles. So apparently "safer than bikes" idea is only a recent phenomenon with him.

2) He tries to discount/undermine the benefits from ABS/Airbag. But Maruti advertises these features as being safe and desirable.

I want, firstly, structurally stable cars. This must be mandated and this must match the best standards out there. Secondly, I want mandatory optional safety pack consisting of airbags and ABS with every variant.

Originally Posted by ringoism

Right. There's no place really for logic or illogic anywhere here, re: the South Delhi vs. Rohtang question. I didn't try to use "logic", and OF COURSE I'm citing the part of the study which suits my argument: My argument - and I'm sure you cannot disagree with this - is that the subcontinent (just like the world around it) is a place of great diversity (landscape, climate, priorities, economics, educational level, etc), and that the needs represented by such diversity calls for a diversity of choice, rather than for cold, hard mandatory ANYTHING that is going to force some to accept solutions that don't work for a significant number of other people.

My bad. I was under the impression that arguments have to be logical. I did not see that you were not relying on logic.

Originally Posted by ringoism

Since you're citing NHTSA, I'll include this:

"The (NHTSA) tests confirmed that ABS was highly effective in preventing yawing and allowing the driver to steer the car during panic braking. Stopping distances decreased substantially with four-wheel ABS on wet surfaces, but decreased only slightly on dry pavement and increased considerably on gravel.




............................. etc


(source:http://www.nhtsa.gov/CARS/rules/regr...te/808206.html

I fail to see the point. The findings are similar to other studies during that period.

Originally Posted by ringoism

Where's the need for logic? Running off the road in the plains might be as little as a minor inconvenience. Running off it in the hills is often 100% deadly, and ABS systems apparently increase my risk of that by 28%. S. Delhi might not have its gravel, but I live on and frequent gravel roads, where my stopping distances are "significantly increased". So ABS may be a negative for many in similar conditions as mine. I'm not saying the S. Delhiite wouldn't benefit from ABS or that he shoudn't have it. Why would he say that I WOULD benefit from it (when it doesn't bear out statistically under my conditions / typical types of accidents / specific road risks) and that I SHOULD have it?

The point (again) is that CONTEXT is everything. Why shouldn't both of us be given the choice to decide what sort of vehicle suits us? And why shouldn't the rural population, which still numbers (statistically) the urban in India, be allowed to make their own decisions - informed or less informed - about what best suits their own, unique needs?

Again, I fail to see the point. I have already conceded as much in my earlier post. So, where is the need for all these long sermons?

Originally Posted by ringoism

Still, you can call them stereotypes, I'll call them reasonable generalizations with obviously a number of exceptions. The generalizations can indeed to a large degree be supported statistically (see where there is functional 3G internet supporting the flow of information... see how many automobile owner's manuals are offered in regional languages... see what the 10th pass marks (or % of the population) are for the rural districts vs. S. Delhi... etc... and why is not tBhp membership significant, since that's going to be a lot more likely source of understanding re: ABS functionality than an already ineffective government licensing center would be, which is your proposal?).


I can assure you that digging up stats for the sake of our little argument here is not worth my time, so I'll stand on the simple observations of one (yours truly) who's lived / traveled / spent considerable time in both rural and urban environments in most regions / states of the union since 1999. If your experience in rural / urban India is distinct from that, you are certainly entitled to make your own generalizations, or not make them. Not saying I'm right and anyone else is wrong. Just saying that I've seen what I've seen in quite a lot of places. It's all in flux and the same might not hold true ten years from now. But the question is coming right now, no?

Reasonable generalizations, in this context, is entirely synonymous to stereotyping. I will gladly take this up with you off line. I can counter your anecdotal evidences with mine, but it will be OT.

Originally Posted by ringoism

And ultimately I don't think we need to correlate anything anyway, it's all besides the point. What is a fact is that there is great diversity in India. There are rich and there are poor. Educated and uneducated. People who will benefit greatly from these features and those who will be killed by them. Doesn't matter where they live or what else they may or may not know, or what language they speak. Same shoe doesn't fit everyone, so don't try and force it on.

Isn't is true for most countries? You would have us think that, somehow, in other countries, everybody is rich (or everybody is poor), everybody is educated (or everybody is uneducated) etc..

Originally Posted by ringoism

You're right that vehicle manufacturers can blame road conditions, etc, for their engineering failures (it happened with the newfangled Delhi Corp. buses a few years ago); but as has been acknowledged elsewhere in the thread, carmakers they actually make more money on models equipped with high-tech features - so as I (and others here rightly) see it, there is no reason that they don't want to fit them, except that they understand the fine nuances of their market demographics far better than anyone writing in this thread does. They know that feature-laden entry-level models - whose profits are already quite marginal - are not what MOST people want to buy. All stereotypes and faulty logic and ill-applied nationalism aside, it really is as simple as that.

You do not need to be verbose to state the simple fact: the automakers are being unscrupulous and it is high time we forced them to do the right thing. (I have stated above as to what I think is the right thing.)

Originally Posted by ringoism

If you find that it is your life's calling to create a new platform to educate the uninformed(rich, poor, rural, urban, whatever) car-buying public about how to properly operate an ABS/SRS-equipped vehicle, and also to push the government to pave (and regularly re-pave) each and every road, both urban and rural, and with strict regularity to clean any dust and gravel and banana / mango peels, cowdung (c'mon, anyone who's been riding a bike here awhile knows what I'm talking about!) and whatever other stuff might (similar to unpacked snow) throw off an ABS-system, and to do all you can to inject life into the rural economic systems in the poorer regions, then I'm sure that EVERYBODY would want all the safety features they could afford and more, and would, on credit (a wonderful North American feature), buy so-equipped cars by the zillions - because it would actually be likely to work wonders for them in one way or the other.

It is constitutional duty of the government to do that. And I will ask the government to do that.

Originally Posted by ringoism

(Pretty sure I was truly stereotyping in that last bit...)

Yes, and many other bits on top of that.

On the whole, I don't see any point in continuation of this argument since we both agree on the fundamentals. The only sticky bit is the definition of stereotype and that is hardly the topic of the thread.

[akj53]

I just saw this thread and have read few posts on the last page only. Discussion is about Bhargav's statement and if I remember correctly was seconded by 1-2 more car companies. The main reason for absurdities of such statements is sales and profits at any costs, ethics and benefits to society be damned. So the large companies owned by so called 'respected' businessmen will cheat consumers, pay bribes, run unsafe factories and adopt 'smart' business practices and what not.

Without going into statistical merits / demerits of ABS / Airbags, if their fitments are able to save even 100 lives, then the fitment is justified. I remember one instance, we were coming from Scotland to Manchester in our Jaguar XF Sport. It was late night, raining and my son was driving over 80 MPH. Suddenly he swerved to avoid a large puddle on the road. For a second it appeared that car will skid, go off road and roll over or crash, but some electronics worked and the car balanced itself within mili-seconds and we were able to continue our journey though badly shaken. Till this date I thank God and the car maker who put those safety devices in the car and saved my family, cost be damned.

M.D., of safe maker Chubb once said "There is no lock in the world which can't be broken. We have a team of safe breakers in our company and we give a newly designed safe to them to break it. After they break it we then try to find out a way to block that weakness in the next model" No technology is fool proof so tech improvement is an on going process. Locks are not fool proof but it doesn't mean that we should stop using locks. So arguments against safety gadgets are not justified to say the least.

Bhargav's statement is simply absurd and can be blown away by a simple fact that the consumers who will not be able to pay the increased cost can always buy a second hand car. Second hand cars are available for as low as Rs. 40-50,000. Such irresponsible statements prove that all they are worried is about their sales, public safety be damned.

[ringoism]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

So India should not, for some perceived-by-you-differences, have safer cars?

On some details, I agree. airbags, as has been stated several times, may kill passengers not properly secured, and probably will kill children on laps. Without education first, air bags are more of a danger than a safety aid.

Details aside, Mr Bhargava seems to think that it is not his job to provide safer cars, or, more particularly, not to provide cars that are at least as safe as the equivalent models that he supplies to other countries, unless the govt tells him he has to. In not too many words, what exactly do you think of that?

"not too many words..." Oh, sorry about that... I have this problem, see???

1. I definitely DO think India should have safer cars. But beyond body structure and the quality of basic systems (tyres, brakes, etc), definitions of "safer" become murky for me personally, because what's "safer" under one type of road condition with one type of driver common in one place are not necessarily going to be "safer" in another. See more below, but:

as one example, a WRC/F1 - tuned ABS-system, very high-tech and effective IN ITS PLACE, would be downright dangerous on average roads driven by relatively unskilled drivers on whichever continent you consider, every day of every year. Why? CONTEXT. Is such a system appropriate / beneficial off the track? Not really. My concern is that "safer" cars are probably not going to do much good if in this Indian case, also, context is not considered.

Another example (aforementioned) is the expensive HID lighting that lights up the darkest night in India like daytime - but since very few here are availing of the extremely basic and very inexpensive dimmer (a.k.a. dipper) switch to avoid blinding oncoming drivers (and hence, ultimately themselves, since the other driver will also not dip if he doesn't), the expensive technology which COULD have made us all safer is actually creating a more dangerous situation (night blindness) out there, for neglect of the inexpensive safety features already in place.

One more real-world example: I heard complaints up here when front disc brakes came out on motorcycles - they were apparently "dangerous" (???). A local kid died on his new Thunderbird and I guess there were enough other mishaps to create this consensus of opinion. Seems they locked up too easily on surfaces other than dry pavement. I thought: "these village people seriously need to be educated [what do they know?]". Then a few years later, I was reading about the history of British bikes, and how most back in the time Bullets, etc, were designed/marketed (1950's) were equipped with very small front drum brakes DELIBERATELY, since in that time there were few well-paved roads in England, and having too strong a front brake was dangerous on loose surfaces, and rear brakes were to be more heavily depended on if one wanted to stop safely. Had nothing to do with "education" after all. Hmmm... few well-paved roads... like parts of Himachal ten years ago (and even now) So are disc brakes a definite "safety feature"? Depends on CONTEXT. Are airbags? You say maybe not, in the current Indian context. Is ABS? I'll say maybe not for that, too, for reasons I sincerely believe to be valid.

In all the examples I've cited here, there is a mismatch between the intention and potential of the safety feature, and its actual effectiveness, and there are a number of other factors that must be soberly considered before just strapping on the newest safety gear that worked someplace else (the F1 circuit, the autobahn, North American highways, well-paved country roads, whatever).

2. I believe you are right about what Mr. Bhargava seems to think - and I think his assessment of the situation is based on well-researched market realities unique to the subcontinent, and what he and probably the majority of Maruti's board believes the public is informed / concerned / non-fatalistic enough to be willing to pay for on an entry-level car. Yes, he is concerned about profits. Probably he's also selfish. Like pretty much the rest of humanity.

3. I've spoken re: higher-tech safety equipment, because many (not all) contributing to the thread are thinking these also should be mandated: and ABS is one thing I do have quite a lot of technical experience with. IMO, studies in other lands where ABS was mandated earlier cannot be depended on as faithful predictors of positive effects here in India, because conditions (U.S. and Europe, in particular) ARE different there: re: India, I think in particular of soft (unpaved) shoulders, single-lane-width roads intended for two-lane traffic (which often force a driver onto those soft shoulders!), mud/dust/broken pavement/gravel often mixed with better road surfaces, significant amounts of debris in the road, etc. ABS-systems development and controlled ABS testing abroad were generally done on UNIFORMLY wet pavement. UNIFORMLY dry pavement. even UNIFORMLY groomed-gravel (still in use as a road-surface in some southern U.S. states, for example), etc. Because that's the kind of roads that drivers in places like Germany (Bosch) and the U.S. (Delco) and Japan (Nippondenso) would be driving on. And even under those more "ideal" conditions, earlier studies (granted, representing earlier cutting-edge technology - WHICH is likely the equivalent of current lower-cost systems) the net positive effect was deemed in the NHTSA studies I quoted to be nil.

I do want to explain one SMALL thing about ABS-system operation / programming that I don't think has probably come up here yet (bear with me, if you really want to know / understand):

Most here understand that ABS helps maintain control when braking hard; i.e., you can steer a car whose wheels are all still turning, vs. locked. Good. That indeed helps a skilled (though not a panicked / unskilled) driver potentially avoid a lot of accidents (would've helped me avoid one years ago if I'd had it on my Datsun 280ZX - I could have braked hard AND steered at the same time! Of course, better-quality / wider tyres also would've helped me avoid it - which is why I started buying them after that).

But I also want all readers here to imagine a situation where, say, a driver, trying to avoid hitting something / someone, ends up near the edge of the road, with two wheels on good, clean pavement, and the other two on dirt/sand/gravel/slush (a.k.a. mud) / dusty pavement - a scenario I do find considerably more common here than in many other lands, certainly more common than in lands where ABS has been in wide use for some time. Now, what is an ABS system programmed to do in such a situation? Same thing as everywhere else. Maintain control: allow steering, avoid swaying, yaw, etc. And that control would be LOST if the controller were to allow the majority of the total braking force to be applied to the two wheels most able to stop the car - i.e., those having the best traction, on the clean pavement; Because if it DID apply maximum no-lock force to those wheels, the steering wheel would pull hard to that side, and if the driver didn't have: 1) a very tight grip on the wheel and 2) an understanding that he needed to hold the wheel straight against the strong force pulling it to the side, then indeed he would lose control.

The folks programming ABS control modules, in general, will assume that the average driver is NOT (vs. F1 / WRC) highly skilled, and that 1) & 2) can NOT be assumed. So they set up the system to reduce braking force on the grippier side to roughly match the maximum force that can be applied on the soft, slippery side - which of course is a LOT less - which means that your car, under these conditions, is not going to stop nearly as fast as it could with more aggressive (think Formula 1 / WRC) ABS program, or even a non-ABS equipped system, where much greater braking force could be applied where it was, in truth, required the most, if the need is to stop quickly rather than stop absolutely straight.

So this is my concern: In Europe you have (besides all the other good roads) the Autobahns where people might be cruising at 200+kmph (we did 160 on a BMW motorcycle IN THE RAIN), where you have well-planned and fully paved / clean shoulders and well-groomed (grass, etc) median areas or other safe dividers / shoulders / etc. between opposing lanes. At 200+kmph, hitting another vehicle is of course almost definitely deadly. You can't afford to lose control, either, because vehicle suspensions, etc, are highly stressed and vehicle dynamics at those speeds are totally different from what they are, say, below 100kmph. In such a context, you might be able to best avoid hitting someone by swerving around them on that well-paved shoulder, or by running parallel along a grass median (etc) till you can slow down, or whatever. Anyway you have a guardrail to get you back in line / keep you from any serious danger further from the road's edge in the course of your avoidance / gradual slowing down. I think under those conditions, and a lot of others, ABS would give you the edge in coming out alive / unhurt. CONTROL is the main thing.

Would it be as beneficial in India? I'm not saying an absolute "NO" but I doubt it would be so effective as it has proven elsewhere, and it might even prove not effective at all, statistically. What are the things unique to the context that allow me to suggest such? First, average speeds are much lower. Still high enough to kill an unrestrained passenger, of course, but it's a much a much "safer" situation speed-wise. That is to say that a car often CAN be stopped within a much shorter distance that Autobahn runners have any hope of, and that high-speed (100+kmph) vehicle dynamics are really not part of the picture in many/most driving situations. Moreover, drivers who are often less experienced / less-skilled / less informed / less strictly trained about how to maximize the effectiveness of ABS are not so likely to be able to maintain full control (i.e., steer effectively) in tricky split-second avoidance maneuvering anyway.

So could it be, in the Indian context, that actually STOPPING the vehicle ASAP - regardless of exactly how straight / controlled that stopping may be - should be the top priority, vs. maintaining control at the cost of applying full braking force where needed? That it would be most effective to apply full braking force to all the wheels, regardless of whether the car may pull to one side or the other (i.e., if two wheels only are on a good, grippy surface that lends itself to a quick stop)?

Also, in very many (most?) places, there are NOT wide, well-paved shoulders or well-groomed, tree-less and obstacle-less run-off areas or guardrails to allow for some maneuvering. So going off the road (which again, is of much higher incidence WITH ABS than without it, and not too surprisingly, in light of the programming parameters outlined above!) is almost certainly a lot riskier, even in the plains (never mind these hills) than in the nations where ABS has been implemented for decades and whose statistics many are using to "prove" how necessary it is to have it fitted to every Indian car.

Lastly, to respond to a couple others in the course of the thread, the idea that: "if it saves even 100 lives... one life... etc... it's worth it" is nice and altruistic, but how many of the people making this assertion have actually sacrificed 30,000 or more of their hard-earned rupees to save some anonymous, unknown person's life (there are thousands of opportunities all around the world right now, incidentally)? Moreover, this is the kind of thinking that got my home state in the U.S. into trouble. It's like anything else: The closer you get to that idealistic standard, the costs go up exponentially. If you want a no-holds-barred approach to saving "even one life" (not just in the motoring context, mind you), believe me, any and every nation on earth will go bankrupt. Not everyone can afford to drive a Jaguar, mind you, and last I knew, Jaguar itself was losing big money every year. Despite the fact that people still do die in their cars (looking sexy doing it, albeit).

Again, just my 2paise. In my view, I'm sincerely trying to be realistic here. I think that there are presently ample "safety" options on a fairly wide range of cars out there in the marketplace for those who want them. I do think that structurally-unsafe cars should not be sold here (nor, really, structurally-unsafe tyres, nor structurally-unsafe brake shoes, nor structurally-unsafe wiper blades... nor low-quality/short-life automotive light bulbs, etc...).

But anyway, somehow I can't really see where we need more than that (options on models they feel they can convince people to buy with them) from a manufacturer. Re: the rest, I am sure that many people are going to go out and buy the cheapest, worst-performing/stopping/accident-avoiding replacement tyres (for example) to offset the added costs associated with the mandated "safety features" or whatever in their new cars. It happens every day in the U.S. at present, where an "entry level" car costs several times what it does here both to buy and maintain, due in large part to government's meddling. So what's the point, ultimately?

-Eric

Note from Support - Please do not type in bold. It's akin to shouting and is considered rude. Thanks

[Thad E Ginathom]

I have this problem: an attention span that has not quite diminished to Twitter levels (I don't use it) but has been severely impacted by the internet. Perhaps by Indian driving too

Now, really, I do agree with you that Indian driving is different. I was explaining to a friend, yesterday, why I find UK roads more scary than India! It is because one can mostly expect others to do what they should do, and I have long since lost that expectation.

The crux of the matter:

2. I believe you are right about what Mr. Bhargava seems to think - and I think his assessment of the situation is based on well-researched market realities unique to the subcontinent, and what he and probably the majority of Maruti's board believes the public is informed / concerned / non-fatalistic enough to be willing to pay for on an entry-level car. Yes, he is concerned about profits. Probably he's also selfish. Like pretty much the rest of humanity.

And it could be reduced to my bold. Yes, I know it's it's his job to be concerned about profits, but there are concerns and concerns. What if it was pharma, and instead of a slightly weaker body shell, it was 10% less ingredient?

Now, you go a lot into ABS, and I don't argue with you technically, but I do argue with the tendency to argue from the standpoint that there are only two kinds of roads in the world: foreign has autobahns; India has, well... Indian roads. Because, well, no. Less black, less white, and a lot more grey, please.

A personal reflection from a once-upon-a-time typesetter: the more bold you use, the less anything stands out. It becomes a black blob on the page. In internet terms, it also feels a lot like being shouted at.

[SS-Traveller]

Eric, you lost me somewhere there...

Originally Posted by ringoism

(night blindness)

How is night blindness connected to HID use? Some kind of new medical research there? Please quote a reference.

...front disc brakes came out on motorcycles - they were apparently "dangerous" (???). A local kid died on his new Thunderbird...
...Bullets, etc, were designed/marketed (1950's) were equipped with very small front drum brakes DELIBERATELY, since in that time there were few well-paved roads...

Are you also advocating the abolishing of disc brakes on motorcycles now? At least for bikes sold in Himachal?

...imagine a situation...
...control would be LOST if the controller were to allow the majority of the total braking force to be applied to the two wheels most able to stop the car - i.e., those having the best traction, on the clean pavement; Because if it DID apply maximum no-lock force to those wheels, the steering wheel would pull hard to that side, and if the driver didn't have: 1) a very tight grip on the wheel and 2) an understanding that he needed to hold the wheel straight against the strong force pulling it to the side, then indeed he would lose control.

???
(the part in bold above)
Did you just describe vehicle behaviour with ABS only, with ABS+other acronyms, or with no electronics governing braking characteristics at all?

So could it be, in the Indian context, that actually STOPPING the vehicle ASAP - regardless of exactly how straight / controlled that stopping may be - should be the top priority, vs. maintaining control at the cost of applying full braking force where needed?

I can't believe you just said that part in bold above. Are you implying that a shorter stopping distance is better even if a vehicle spins out? And what has this got to do with Indian / any other country's context?

And one last thing - can you please stop using rampant bold formatting? Makes some of us unenlightened folks think you are shouting - similar to typing in ALL CAPS.

[ashlil]

Originally Posted by SS-Traveller

(the part in bold above)
Did you just describe vehicle behaviour with ABS only, with ABS+other acronyms, or with no electronics governing braking characteristics at all?

Actually, you hit the nail on its head there. The vehicle behaviour is same with any type of brakes. Also, although, some research point to the fact that ABS increases run-off-the-road type incidents as compared to conventional brakes, ABS+ESC reduces it.

Originally Posted by ringoism

Another example (aforementioned) is the expensive HID lighting that lights up the darkest night in India like daytime - but since very few here are availing of the extremely basic and very inexpensive dimmer (a.k.a. dipper) switch to avoid blinding oncoming drivers (and hence, ultimately themselves, since the other driver will also not dip if he doesn't), the expensive technology which COULD have made us all safer is actually creating a more dangerous situation (night blindness) out there, for neglect of the inexpensive safety features already in place.

Seriously, don't you see how stereotypical this comment is? Please take a deep breath and read Thad carefully below:

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Because, well, no. Less black, less white, and a lot more grey, please.

[ringoism]

Truly sorry for all the bold. Really wasn't shouting in my heart. Know I write too long and was trying to make what I thought were the most crucial bits of info stand out a bit. Won't do it again.

And besides annoying people, it didn't work. I do feel my points are being largely misunderstood / rejected - by certain individuals, at least. The second I don't mind at all, so long as they've bothered to soberly think things through and fairly deal with any facts/info/observations presented, or even the grain of truth that may be contained in a generalization or whatever. The first I DO mind, because it means that potentially valid ideas have not been not communicated well enough.

I need to leave on a long journey a few short hours from now, and will have limited net access the next couple months, so will attempt one last time to express with clarity and hopefully finality on my part, that:

1. Stereotype or not (and I do love this land and do care that so many are dying needlessly), I've never experienced a place like India (re: my earlier list of visited nations) when it comes to headlight use at night. And that would include even less-developed nations with less-educated populations, like Honduras. I am NOT by any means the first to note this unfortunate feature (incl. Indian writers who've traveled abroad and been amazed at how easy / pleasant / safe it could be to drive there at night under otherwise similar conditions), and it could be easily proven statistically if anyone wanted to bother to do a comparative study. There are a few Indian states I haven't spent time in, so I obviously can't speak for those, but the fact is, pretty much everywhere else, drivers are confronted with high-beams with great frequency (constantly in some areas), it causes a kind of temporary blindness (this is biological fact - I am not speaking of the medical condition of permanent night-blindness... ( please!!!...)), it is dangerous, and unless it changes, it - among other things - will continue to tragically offset very costly technical efforts at "safety". And it would be SO simple and cheap to improve upon. Excuses are as bad as denial / labeling here. It is very widespread, it is largely unique to India, and there are no good excuses. If ashlil and SSTraveller can honestly tell us all here that they always dip their lights to oncoming vehicles, I will applaud them as excellent and conscientious citizens whose inspiring examples should be upheld and followed - by that sad majority in a great many places who still do not.

2. No, I do NOT think disc brakes on bikes should be banned from H.P. (I'd add another "frustration" emoticon here, but they're even more annoying to me than bold). Please relax, take a deep breath, and try to grasp my point. I am saying that ten years ago there were a lot more gravel / dirt roads around here locally, and that in the context of THAT time, people with technically superior disc-brake equipped bikes were dying on them with greater frequency than those riding perhaps technically "inferior" but contextually more appropriate machinery. And that this is just one more example among many that shows context (which includes timing) is important, and that the technologically more advanced solution doesn't always provide the net positive effect that everyone desires. I really don't know what is so hard to grasp here.

3. Spin-outs are a feature of total loss of control at relatively higher speeds, and with average speeds being relatively lower here at this point in time, I doubt they are as significant a cause of fatalities than they were in pre-ABS times in other lands. As such, I definitely DO believe that simply coming to a stop at an angle something less than fully straight, but several feet sooner, would definitely save a lot of lives on Indian roads, particularly of pedestrians, which statistically and in anyone's observation are on average much greater in number along India's roads than in a great many other nations one could compare to (certainly than in any nation I've personally visited).

4) ABS tech: If you're feeling either bold or contentious (or both ), try a real-world test yourself, first with ABS:

Find a parking lot or relatively untraveled road or lane somewhere that has good paving in the lanes and something like mud/slush/sand/gravel or something else decidedly slippery on the shoulder. Get two wheels on the paving and two on the shoulder, and perform a complete, full-on-brake panic stop from, say, 40kmph, from a distinct starting point (a tree or whatever). Repeat it several times and record stopping distances. Note that (if you're really bold and conditions allow it safely) even if you remove your hands totally from the steering wheel while under full braking, the wheel will remain quite straight and not pull hard to the side you'd normally expect - i.e., the paved side. This is because the system is deliberately REDUCING braking force to the wheels that actually have the most traction - which means stopping times will inevitably be longer.

Now: Try it without ABS, too (disconnect a speed sensor - you would now be in normal non-ABS braking mode), but with a somewhat firm grip on the wheel (which most people in panic situations probably DO have), and see whether: a) you actually spin out in any terribly dangerous way; b) you stop in a shorter distance, and if so, how much shorter?

5. If the above comparison tests show any significant differences, then consider:

a) Statistics (if they exist in India), re: the speeds at which the majority of fatal accidents (whether in-car or out of them, i.e., pedestrian deaths) occur. vs. those in the ABS-saturated lands?

b) Stats re: what types of accidents, exactly (i.e., spin-out vs. direct frontal impact, etc), they were. vs. those in the ABS-saturated lands?

c) Easily available governent docs re: the minimum required lane widths, shoulder widths (and specified materials) in India vs. those in the ABS-saturated lands?

c) Etc, etc, etc. (sincerely, now - not reactionary and defensively - but TRY and see the potential differences).

I feel all this data, taken as a whole or in significant parts, would potentially by very telling, if compared with stats from lands where ABS originated and its adoption has been widespread.

Ponder all this in my absence if you so desire. If not, then do as you wish. Demand ABS and airbags and side-impact airbags and yaw-control and whatever other high-tech wizardry you have in mind. And let's see, ten years down the road, whether there's been much change - whether lakhs and lakhs of people are not still being maimed / dying annually from extremely preventable and somewhat unique causes (vs. EU/US) that many as yet seem not quite ready to acknowledge.

Will leave it here. I am definitely putting myself (and others) at risk by depriving myself of sleep before a 600km journey...

With a love for this land and all her people(s),

-Eric

[SS-Traveller]

Originally Posted by ringoism

...it causes a kind of temporary blindness (this is biological fact - I am not speaking of the medical condition of permanent night-blindness... ( please!!!...))

I see now. I guess I took your use of the term "night blindness" too literally.

Originally Posted by ringoism

If... SSTraveller can honestly tell us all here that they always dip their lights to oncoming vehicles, I will applaud them as excellent and conscientious citizens whose inspiring examples should be upheld and followed...

Believe it or not, I always do. It is a matter partly of training & partly of habit. And my cars don't have anything more than 60/55W bulbs, with no auxiliary driving lights, even though the quantum of night driving on highways that I do far exceeds that done by 99% (if not 99.99%) of forum members here.

Originally Posted by ringoism

people with technically superior disc-brake equipped bikes were dying on them with greater frequency than those riding perhaps technically "inferior" but contextually more appropriate machinery.

Now understand what you mean to say.

Originally Posted by ringoism

...I definitely DO believe that simply coming to a stop at an angle something less than fully straight, but several feet sooner, would definitely save a lot of lives on Indian roads, particularly of pedestrians...

That reminds me a bit about rally-driving - the controlled sideways skid. Not sure if the comparison is correct, though. But then, that is a function of superior skill by the driver, and a vehicle starting to go sideways in the hands of a bad driver can have worse consequences.

Originally Posted by ringoism

4) ABS tech: If you're feeling either bold or contentious (or both ), try a real-world test yourself...

Almost 30 years behind the wheel... I have experienced what you describe below, in all kinds of cars - no ABS, ABS, ABS+EBD, ABS+EBD+ESC (and some more acronyms too - BA & ERM).

Originally Posted by ringoism

...perform a complete, full-on-brake panic stop from, say, 40kmph, from a distinct starting point (a tree or whatever).
...even if you remove your hands totally from the steering wheel while under full braking, the wheel will remain quite straight and not pull hard to the side you'd normally expect - i.e., the paved side. This is because the system is deliberately REDUCING braking force to the wheels that actually have the most traction - which means stopping times will inevitably be longer.

Agreed. ABS / ABS+acronyms is rubbish on loose sandy / gravelly surfaces, and certainly increases braking distance - while on wet tarmac it definitely performs better. But the points (a) and (b) you make below...

Originally Posted by ringoism

Try it without ABS, too ... but with a somewhat firm grip on the wheel (which most people in panic situations probably DO have), and see whether: a) you actually spin out in any terribly dangerous way; b) you stop in a shorter distance, and if so, how much shorter?

...are just not true. I have spun out at 30 kmph when braking hard with one side on gravel and one side on tarmac in a non-ABS car - with a firm grip on the wheel - in a manner that almost toppled the car down a slope. I would rather have ABS and larger braking distances, than a lock-up-and-slide situation with smaller braking distance. Knowing about and compensating for longer braking distances is a function of driver education & training, which cannot be removed at any time from the equation of road safety.

Originally Posted by ringoism

a) Statistics (if they exist in India)...

Of course they do, but generally not focussed on that particular area that interests us - vehicles with and without passive safety features. Some research data by Bosch does point to the benefits of ABS etc. - but then some might say that it is by a company with vested interests.

Originally Posted by ringoism

Demand ABS and airbags and side-impact airbags and yaw-control and whatever other high-tech wizardry you have in mind.

Lately I do not have a lot of faith in manufacturers' offerings or intentions. Antiquated safety and other tech being brought in and sold to a gullible Indian public that knows no better. Vehicles that rust from new, or vehicles with fudged and hiked-up power figures on paper. Vehicles that are supposedly unable to run on average Indian fuel. A government that either does not understand what is going on, or turns a blind eye to all this. If we demand ABS+EBD+BA+ESC, we'd grudgingly get ABS only, that too only 3-channel, which is a lot worse than not having anything at all, under certain situations.

But does the average person on the road care? For him, a car is just a means of climbing the social ladder - and in that mad rush to climb, if some folks fall and die, no one seems to be bothered much!

Originally Posted by ringoism

And let's see, ten years down the road, whether there's been much change - whether lakhs and lakhs of people are not still being maimed / dying annually from extremely preventable and somewhat unique causes (vs. EU/US) that many as yet seem not quite ready to acknowledge.

Eric, if you will allow me to detract from the topic of the thread a bit, I would say:

(A) Driving is an acquired skill that needs to be taught formally. And in this country, driver education (along with many other forms of education) is a joke that, as an individual, you or I can do zilch to change. Maruti themselves (pretend to) teach and train drivers - and this is what they do...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAGX_M7mPcU

Note that the trainer is entirely happy to allow a learner to stick to the right lane at slow speed - a learner who, significantly, has not learnt to start moving the car smoothly from a stop, is let loose on public roads. I tailed this vehicle for nearly 2km, and not once did they consider vacating the rightmost lane.

I have been in discussions with very senior personnel in Maruti's Institute of Driving and Traffic Research (IDTR), and offered to train their trainers without any monetary benefit - yet, the offer has not been taken up, and I have been told that these trainers are very lowly paid, and the rate of attrition from the job is very high - so there is no point in training them too much. Go figure how interested Maruti actually is about road safety.

(B) Driving a motor vehicle (I believe) is a privilege, not a right - though I don't deny that owning one can be a right. The privilege ought to come from acquiring certain skills and qualifying certain tests (as is the norm across the world) - yet, the Indian mindset of getting stressed due to a stringent exam is injurious to one's health, so let's dilute the exam process is doing unquantified harm to road safety (and plenty of other spheres of our lives).

In the next 10 (or even 5) years, I expect the absolute number of traffic-related deaths to rise exponentially, despite the new Road Transport & Safety Bill becoming law soon - simply because there is no focus on driver training / education / testing, only on hiking penalties.

In the end, safety tech in vehicles cannot replace driver education - one has to work symbiotically with the other; one cannot argue that either of these (passive safety features or driver training and education) is not a necessity. And this is where the trouble lies - not only does Maruti's chairman not want safer cars, Maruti's IDTR/MDS is also not interested in producing safer drivers in reality.

Originally Posted by ringoism

With a love for this land and all her people(s)

Your love for India shines through in all your posts. Thank you.

[Thad E Ginathom]

ringoism, we have a whole thread on misuse of high-beam and the increasing tendency of never dipping, even in city traffic. ashlil, thanks for quoting me, but I have to say that actually share ringoism's concerns on the fitting of ever-more-powerful headlight technology, and when I read about it, I wonder if the correct aiming and angles is done. In UK, correct adjustment of the lights would be a part of the annual test which a car over three [?] years old must pass to be able to keep it on the road.

Indeed, many of us do take dipping seriously (although there is being human and simply forgetting) and I think that Team-BHP has actually helped people to understand the need not to dazzle others and to act accordingly. The message needs to be spread to a much wider group.

Guys... I am a bit confused about the ABS thing. As I understand ABS, which is at a basic level only, it's purpose is not so much to enable a car to stop in a straight line in emergency-braking conditions, as to give it some ability to steer. My thankfully-limited experience is that, in a crash stop (which led to a crash) from 50MPH (80kph), the non-ABS car I was driving did continue in a straight line and the steering wheel had no effect whatsoever.

I tend to think of of ABS not so much as something that could save my life, but more as something that just might save the life of someone who jumps into the road in front of me. I understand, though, that it does not absolve me of driver skill and presence of mind, and I may very well be found wanting in those areas, but it just gives a little increase in the odds of avoiding the collision.

ringoism, as an offtopic aside, I don't have a good head for heights, especially when measured in three or more digits, and one of my lowest-score driving skills would be fine judgement of vehicle width. I've done plenty of steep and plenty of narrow, mostly on rural UK lanes, but I don't think I have the confidence, or just plain guts, to ever take on real mountain driving.

[ashlil]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

ringoism,

Guys... I am a bit confused about the ABS thing. As I understand ABS, which is at a basic level only, it's purpose is not so much to enable a car to stop in a straight line in emergency-braking conditions, as to give it some ability to steer. My thankfully-limited experience is that, in a crash stop (which led to a crash) from 50MPH (80kph), the non-ABS car I was driving did continue in a straight line and the steering wheel had no effect whatsoever.

I tend to think of of ABS not so much as something that could save my life, but more as something that just might save the life of someone who jumps into the road in front of me. I understand, though, that it does not absolve me of driver skill and presence of mind, and I may very well be found wanting in those areas, but it just gives a little increase in the odds of avoiding the collision.

I will try and explain as best as I can, since nobody else has tried.

Q: Why non-ABS cars will be insensitive to steering input under emergency braking?

If your wheels are non turning, then steering is always hard. With non-ABS cars, wheels lock (i.e. stop turning) with someone standing on the brake pedal. Hence steering is hard. You can still turn the car using lot of muscle on the steering, but that may result in the car going in an unintended direction. Why? Because, if you manage to turn the wheels then the front wheels experience reduction in velocity (due to the fact that they are now continuing in a direction that is at an angle to the original direction). However, the back wheels, not having the steering input, continue with the original velocity in original direction. More velocity for the back wheels and less velocity for the front wheels makes the car turn circularly and hence the car will go in an unintended direction.

[ashlil]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

-------. ashlil, thanks for quoting me, but I have to say that actually share ringoism's concerns on the fitting of ever-more-powerful headlight technology, and when I read about it, I wonder if the correct aiming and angles is done.

Mods: I could not edit my post to add this and hence separate post:

I too share ringoism's concerns. I never had any problems with his concerns or intentions (In fact I agree with his core premises). I only had problem with his generalizations, which, I think, distract from his points.