[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by gthang

Is the cheapest variant of Polo comparable to the cheapest variant of Swift for cost?

And I am saying it does not provide the same levels of safety even with Air Bags and ABS even if I am willing to pay for it. The cost is irrelevant. The top end variant prices are on par with the new Swift being slightly more expensive.

Originally Posted by gthang

Are you paying the same as a consumer in Europe?

Again irrelevant. I am not paying European price for any mainstream hatchback that is sold in India. Not all of them have compromised structural integrity.

Originally Posted by gthang

Actually, that's not my logic at all.

Then what is your logic?

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by gthang

There are a lot of places in India where ABS and Airbags are NOT essential for daily use, and people can afford only the basic minimum. They put them through uses where chances of activating airbags and damaging ABS are very high.

The question is what is the basic minimum? Just for discussion, let us assume that a bare basic car, without any creature comforts like power steering, air conditioner, stereo and without any safety features costs 1L

Lets say a model with creature comforts adds Rs. 20K and addition of safety features adds 20K. Now if a guy (from a place where no ABS or Airbags are required, as per your post) goes to buy the basic car. But looking at the creature comforts for another 20K, he decides to buy the model with creature comforts - My question is, would you tell this guy "no no no, you are supposed to buy only a bare basic car, no additional features are required by you!!"

The argument may be convoluted - but think a little bit, this is what is happening. People are willing to spend more on other features at the cost of safety. We cannot differentiate between a guy buying a bare basic car and a guy spending a wee bit more, opting for comfort over safety

Since the safety features like ABS and Airbags are already available and the extra cost is going to be the same as adding a power steering and air conditioner, wouldn't you think that the small risk of a cow jumping across a moving car and deploying the airbag a risk worth taking?

The roads I drive (you must be very familiar with, for sure) see a lots of cows and other domestic friends moving around - am yet to encounter or hear a situation where a car hit a cow causing a fatal accident or making the airbags to deploy!!. (Camel falling on cars in Dubai or Moose falling on cars in Europe killing people are more common)

No one is saying that we should forget about better infrastructure or better public transport facilities.But at the same time, why should we say no to a feature that is already available and is also proven to protect people?

And what do you think the addition in EMI for an increase of 40K in the basic price would be?

[wilful]

For those of you who are wondering whether the addition of airbags etc make a variant prohibitively more expensive, here is a link to a thread discussing the same on this forum.
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...-debunked.html

It would be an ideal situation where all cars are fitted with abs and airbags and structural safety not pruned down for India specific models.
Will accidents still happen? Of course they will - people will still be killed or get injured. The roads will continue to be terrible - dangerous driving - barging two wheelers - cows - goats - hens will still be on our pock marked roads in many places.
But despite all that I sincerely believe that some lives will be saved because of additional safety features on cars in spite of the badly constructed roads, the chaotic traffic, poor driving manners and all that. And I believe that every life saved is not just a statistic - definitely not to that person's family members.
I might be called sanctimonious or 'self-righteous' but I would rather spend money on safety features than a super music system or alloys etc.
As I said earlier on this thread - power steering and air-con were considered luxury not in the too distant past. Today even the Alto or a Nano has them.

[hemanth.anand]

Wow! what logic Mr. RCB
I'm at loss for words and others have already told what I needed to say

Originally Posted by gthang

All of you self-righteous netizens can throw brick-bats at Maruti and even applaud personal attacks on a person who is just voicing his company's past, present and future policy till the cows come home.

It won't make a bit of difference

I agree with you only up to this.
It wont make a difference to their views about safety(Clearly known with his comments), the quality of their cars(it may become more lighter, unsafe however) or their sales volumes!

Now, if all over the country we had good roads, and high speed driving is the norm, then the required safety features should be as well. But it is NOT so in India.

But cars here are unable to keep their structural integrity intact at 64kmph. Do you really think 64kmph or higher is not a norm in present India?

If you feel airbags and ABS are mandatory in rural India (read = majority),

Request you to support any argument with facts/numbers and number show me that Rural is not equal to Majority...

Source: http://articles.economictimes.indiat...-suzuki-ambadi

[gthang]

Originally Posted by saket77

First people drive/ sit in a car without seatbelts. And then the driver bangs the car head on and airbags deploy to save the occupants. Now some one gets killed due to airbags deployment because he was not belted and then we have you blaming the SRS for killing the guy?

And there is no need of being familiar with ABS. It simply does the job. If you have presence of mind, you can steer around in tandem. That is the job of a good driver.

Lots of assumptions there. So you agree that driver education should come before using cars with ABS and Airbags? Or it that assumed as well?

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

And I am saying it does not provide the same levels of safety even with Air Bags and ABS even if I am willing to pay for it. The cost is irrelevant. The top end variant prices are on par with the new Swift being slightly more expensive.
Again irrelevant. I am not paying European price for any mainstream hatchback that is sold in India. Not all of them have compromised structural integrity.

I'm sure cost is irrelevant to you. Wish the same could be said of all your Indian brethren.

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Then what is your logic?

I'm not inclined to answer to such a tone. I could tell you to re-read my posts and deduce, but that would be rude and asking too much.

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

The roads I drive (you must be very familiar with, for sure) see a lots of cows and other domestic friends moving around - am yet to encounter or hear a situation where a car hit a cow causing a fatal accident or making the airbags to deploy!!. (Camel falling on cars in Dubai or Moose falling on cars in Europe killing people are more common)

I think you misunderstood my cow/camel scenario. I am not talking about a fatal accident with an animal scenario. I am talking about the occasional stray cow bumping into your bumper in a rural setting. Would you want your airbag to go off then?

Maybe we can then start a thread on airbag deployment sensitivity in rural India.

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

And what do you think the addition in EMI for an increase of 40K in the basic price would be?

Dunno, but significant for many, I'm sure. Maybe not for many TBhpians, but sadly, India is not just TBhpians.

Cheers

[Zappo]

While I find most of your logic to be very strange and belabored I would like to respond to one of your very self righteous and indignant sounding question. This is often employed by people who otherwise have little to substantiate and want to cause confusion in the ranks. Invoke the poor, raise a stink talking about the downtrodden etc. As I see, here also people have generally given this question a wide berth.

Originally Posted by gthang

Are we to say that those that cannot afford them should not drive at all? Or is it that we want rock bottom prices with world class features because we are entitled to it?

To your first question the answer is an emphatic yes. I have the guts to call your bluff because I came from the class that you are talking about. Safety of life is paramount. To make you ride a car one can not take out the vital security aspects to endanger lives. You can't build structurallly weak vehicles, ones that get wheels locked and fishtail and hit things or spin out of control in a panic braking or ones that let the passenger bang his/her head on to the windshield or get the steering to pierce the driver's stomach in a collision.

You of course will throw all those consideration to the winds in the name of the empowered poor. In fact, I am sure you will also argue for planes with minimal seat but with maximum space for standees with hanging handgrips so that costs go down and more and more people can travel by air. Or you will also argue to get done with building doors for the houses as it is now proven that the best of locks can be anyhow picked by the burglars given a little time. Considering that leaves the doors then futile for real security it is always better to have houses without doors as that can reduce some costs.

Do you agree? Or does my logic sounds incredulous to you? If it is the latter then believe me you are almost sounding the same to everyone else.

As for pricing of the safety devices like airbag modules, ABS etc., nobody asked for a rockbottom price etc. That's you thrusting your logic unnecessarily on others. Pricing is always a factor of demand and supply. Today most of these modules are imported. If these get mass scale adoption sooner than later you will have multitude of manufacturers starting units in this country. Prices will anyhow come down. Of course, the volumes will anyhow drive down the prices further.

[gthang]

Originally Posted by Zappo

To your first question the answer is an emphatic yes. I have the guts to call your bluff because I came from the class that you are talking about.

Belonging to a class gives you the right to speak on their entire behalf.
Quite indignant of you as well.

Originally Posted by Zappo

Safety of life is paramount. To make you ride a car one can not take out the vital security aspects to endanger lives. You can't build structurallly weak vehicles, ones that get wheels locked and fishtail and hit things or spin out of control in a panic braking or ones that let the passenger bang his/her head on to the windshield or get the steering to pierce the driver's stomach in a collision.

Safety of life IS paramount. Responsibility for it does not belong to the car manufacturer. All of the above mentioned can and does happen in cars equipped with all safety features you could think of depending on the accident scenario. BTW are you sure you are not thinking of Mahindra and not Maruti when talking about rolling coffins? I never thought that Maruti cars were that bad.

Originally Posted by Zappo

You of course will throw all those consideration to the winds in the name of the empowered poor. In fact, I am sure you will also argue for planes with minimal seat but with maximum space for standees with hanging handgrips so that costs go down and more and more people can travel by air. Or you will also argue to get done with building doors for the houses as it is now proven that the best of locks can be anyhow picked by the burglars given a little time. Considering that leaves the doors then futile for real security it is always better to have houses without doors as that can reduce some costs.

Who's thrusting what now?

Originally Posted by Zappo

Do you agree? Or does my logic sounds incredulous to you? If it is the latter then believe me you are almost sounding the same to everyone else.

Incredulous part is how you have understood EVERYONE so well and so quick and you feel on posting on their behalf.

[StarScream]

While Bhargava's argument is disingenuous, I do think making cars safer is only one aspect of the broader issue. Adhering to traffic rules, dedicated lanes for buses and/or two wheelers and more traffic cops are all needed.

I also agree that demand is so elastic at the entry level that the slightest change can skew buying decisions. MSIL should know - the best sales are of their entry-level and non-airbag variants. But then this is the same company that didn't think seat belts were needed until they were regulated.

Unfortunately, as has been said many times before, this forum isn't representative of the common car buyer in India.

[SchumiFan]

Personally I feel making ABS/Airbags mandatory is akin to putting a band-aid over a fractured arm.

The main issue is the people's mentality on the roads and the severe lack of infrastructure. I am not talking lack of roads, but the potholed nature of the existing ones especially along with other issues mentioned earlier in the forum/thread.

Another point is about how much it costs to repair the Airbags post deployment. If that is too high, then it is an obstacle as well. We already have members in the forum highlighting about how some cars which were repaired after a crash, were done so without proper fixation of the airbags. How are we going to control it? This is another knee-jerk reaction without proper research/trail just like the ban on sun-films by the SC.

I am all for safety; if it means making ABS/Airbags optional across cars sold. I leave the choice to the buyer as to whether he chooses safety or equipments for his car. After all it's a free nation.

[arnabchak]

Very lousy statements by the top brass of MSIL.

What are they thinking?
Where they should have taken the onus of admitting their mistake by way of correction, they are busy criticizing some positive steps a responsive Govt. is taking towards road safety.

In fact, a Rs. 30,000/-(yes, thats the incremental cost one will incur if a mass production car like Alto/Wagon R have compulsory airbags and ABS) is not more than the life of a biker.

Consider this, 30,000 over 5 years will be 6K per year + 10% Interest on reducing basis.

This is like 6600/year= Rs. 550/- per month.
Lower than the price of a Meal for 2 at Dominos.

So, Mr. Bhargava justifies that this Rs. 550/- will turn away motorists to buy a car.

If A=B and B=C, it just translates few simple things:

• The life of a motorist in India is valued at Rs. 550/- by the MSIL top boss.
• MSIL are just finding ways to defer to the new rule.
• MSIL rather than being the leaders are talking like laggards.

Very disappointing approach!!

[mkpiyengar]

Why does Maruti of Bhargava decide whether Safety is important of not.

Have Airbags/ABS as optional package with every version and not restricted to top-end version.

People can opt for Safety with Mid-range or low-range version as well based on their budget requirements.

Give People the OPTION to CHOOSE.... SIMPLE !!

But Mr. Bhargava there is no compensation for a inferior Chassis/Frame as detected in the NCAP Tests.. How do you answer that ?

Cheers..
MKP

[Zappo]

Originally Posted by gthang

Belonging to a class gives you the right to speak on their entire behalf.
Quite indignant of you as well.

No... and I never said that. But what got your goat now is that somebody called your bluff. You thought by asking that question you threw an ace because nobody will be able to answer in the affirmative. And I just did.

And I explained why... You deftly left all that part out and again decided to focus on an inane thing.

Originally Posted by gthang

Safety of life IS paramount. Responsibility for it does not belong to the car manufacturer.

Hilarious really!!! You should read today's news where Toyota has been asked to pay for the loss of a life. Obviously even the courts of law do not agree with you.

Originally Posted by gthang

Who's thrusting what now?

I think you can see who is thrusting what. When you are the only guy going when everyone else seems to be coming back then you are headed down the wrong side of the road.

Originally Posted by gthang

BTW are you sure you are not thinking of Mahindra and not Maruti when talking about rolling coffins?

I never talked about any kind of rolling coffins my friend. You just did! I dont know where you got rolling coffins and Mahindra into this suddenly from!

Originally Posted by gthang

Incredulous part is how you have understood EVERYONE so well and so quick and you feel on posting on their behalf.

No... I am not posting on everyone's behalf. But as a part of my duty here it is also impotant for me to see that people do not throw punches below the belt on the sly.

I think you are getting the gist. This once you left all my queries related to similar logic around yours and again started talking on non issues.

Next time around please be mindful when you unnecessarily try to drag in issues which are not relevant or are secondary or tertiary to the immediate issue at hand you will be challanged and you will need to substantiate those (in this case, it is the minimal safety requirements of modern cars; things like the poor and their right to drive etc do not at all come into the picture here).

Hope that helps.

[tsk1979]

"Many people live in shanties which have no fire safety measures, so whats the point of mandating them in high rises".

So what say? Pointless to have safety features in high rises because shanties do not have them?
This is the argument Maruti Chief is making.

IF he was a real estate developer, he would say

"Lot of people cannot afford basic housing and live in shanties which have no fire safety. We should first give all of them homes, before mandating basic fire safety norms in high rises".

You can give any justification. For example, a Datsun go is safer than a cycle or a bike. But does it matter? Just because in many places tap water is dirty, we should let bottled water companies sell you dirty water?
Just because many vegetables in local market contain pesticides, we should let processed food companies sell rotten or expired food?
Just because counterfeit medicines cause countless deaths all over the company, we should allow sale of drugs banned for inexcusable side effects abroad?

This is the argument which he is making. Does not make sense to me.

[GTO]

I'd like to ask Bhargava for his comments on the poor crashworthiness of the Indian Swift. Shudder to think how their cheaper hatchbacks (WagonR, Celerio, Alto etc.) will fare in the same crash test. Leave aside airbags & ABS, how about making crash-worthy cars first?

Or for that matter, equip your cars with good brakes? Remember the Swift L / V variant brakes? Oh, I'm sorry. That's going to cost you money too, Mr. Bhargava.

Lastly, why not give customers the choice? Make ABS & Airbags available on each model & variant. Let the customers decide. And while you're at it, educate them on the importance of these features too (just like you taught us about the importance of fuel economy).

End of the day, what can you expect? Maruti had opposed Euro emission norms in the nineties (which they eventually adhered to) and diesel engines (which they eventually got).

Originally Posted by gthang

I would rather the Government focus on improving infrastructure.

Originally Posted by SchumiFan

The main issue is the people's mentality on the roads and the severe lack of infrastructure.

Out of context. We're discussing a car manufacturer here. The government should definitely provide better infrastructure. But that doesn't absolve car manufacturers of their responsibility in selling safe cars. In a way, I applaud VW for - overnight - equipping their cars with airbags after the NCAP test. They kept mum and did what they had to (unlike Maruti).

Safer cars are even more important in a country with poor road infrastructure.

Are we to say that those that cannot afford them should not drive at all?

The cost of airbags & ABS should be no more than Rs. 20,000, especially if volumes go up. I remember a BHPian who worked with the auto industry providing this number on another thread. That's less than 10% of the cost of the cheapest Maruti.

[SchumiFan]

Originally Posted by GTO

Leave aside airbags & ABS, how about making crash-worthy cars first?

Out of context. We're discussing a car manufacturer here. The government should definitely provide better infrastructure. But that doesn't absolve car manufacturers of their responsibility in selling safe cars. In a way, I applaud VW for - overnight - equipping their cars with airbags after the NCAP test. They kept mum and did what they had to (unlike Maruti).

Safer cars are even more important in a country with poor road infrastructure.

There has been a sudden spite of threads discussing safety of cars post the NCAP tests. My reply was highlighting my take on that issue not particularly on the Maruti chairman's words.

While I am insistent that ABS/Airbags should be optional across range, I agree that the crash worthiness of the car should not be impacted.

Maruti should make structural modifications or not make them (removal etc) inline with the European models. They have a stronghold over the minds of the Indian public with their sales/service exp. There is no need to feel insecure about their position and become defensive. Hope it happens.

What it will also mean is that they sold sub par cars until now which might open them up to law suits. Wonder how they will tackle that

If there is any regulation body in India for safety of cars, I wish they speak up and clarify the stand on the method of tests conducted for cars sold in India and if Swift has indeed been declared fit to be sold here according to regulations.

All we have been hearing is from the Manufacturers and the Public but nothing from these bodies.