[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by gthang

Strange thing about crash worthiness.



No matter which vehicle I drive, I never drive with the CONFIDENCE that the structure has been tested and is worth a certain number of stars.



I drive with the FEAR that my vehicle is made of tin foil and it will not withstand anything. No head-on collision, no side impact, not even an impact with an auto. Even flying stones from trucks scare me. A bicyclist could take my side out.



This FEAR helps. CONFIDENCE never does, because God forbid, I get into an accident that is beyond the crash rating of the vehicle.

As long as the vehicle does not self disintegrate, I am OK. Which I don't think any Maruti will. Cheers

Fine, you drive carefully, we get the point. However, I as a Swift owner still feel very cheated that my car has an inherently unsafe structure. And what makes matters worse is that I was sold the Swift thinking it has passed the crash tests, and I now realize that the Indian swift is purposely missing structural reinforcements that are present in the European Swift.

Now, without calling any one names, please for heavens sake, do you mind telling me who I should hold accountable for this cheating.

[Trust_In_Thrust]

There was an artilce in todays google newstand in Family Car Guide wherein US stats have been shown wherein a heavier car is safer than a lighter car . Also shown was how a higher car with ESP is much safer than a lower height car with/without ESP. I think all people who used to say data it is there now from USA . I will try to get link of same and revert.

Here yo go
http://www.thecarconnection.com/news...n-small-sedans
http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwzI3d4Ro

[svsantosh]

God!! As if Max Mosley publicly flogging Carlos wasnt enough...

This is going to be a "Papoo" Moment for Indian automobile Industry :(

[civic-sense]

Originally Posted by MaheshY1

We are demanding to have ABS and Airbags without having to pay for:
- Alloy wheels
- Music system
- Seat covers
- Body colored ORVM and handles
- Steering mounted controls
and all the other stuff we end up paying for, by having to buy the top variant.

Or in simple words:

We need ABS and Airbags—at least as an option—even on the base variants of all cars.

This is the only reason I couldn't get the ABS and Airbags when buying Beat D recently.

Excuses.

I agree that manufacturers should be bashed severely for not providing safety options in the base variants. For getting 2 airbags and ABS, you are made to pay for useless alloys, etc.

BUT, consider this:

Due to clubbing alloys etc with safety kit, the price difference is now 1L. Do we consider 1L for two airbags and ABS too high? Are we looking at ABS+Airbags based on the cost of manufacture or the value it is providing us?

For me the value the safety kit is providing is much more than the 1L that they make me pay. I'd probably buy the ZXi and sell the alloy wheels than not buying the safety kit version at all.

It all depends on what value you put to safety.

[alpha1]

Oh boy this thread!
So all those who condemning MR Bhargava - do you know how safe is the building where you work? Or the house that you stay in?

In fact first of all what is the definition of Safe?
I see that even Jeroen is also quite taken aback by the lack of vision shown by Bhargava's statement.

But then I ask same thing to him - in a ship or an offshore platform how much safe is safe enough?

I sell safety systems to all major hazardous process industries in most of the manufacturing verticals. The calculations though complicated are quite simple in terms of understanding.

There is a chance of X incidents per 10 years. Y number of people can die in such incidents. Total expected deaths in 10 years = XY.
Sum this over different scenarios.
If this figure is acceptable carry on with your design plans.
If this figure is not acceptable, make suitable changes that make it acceptable.
If it is still not within acceptable limits, then you seek safety systems.

In safety systems you have high end (which reduce the occurence of risk by a greater percent), and low end (which quite obviously reduce the risk by lower percent). And everything in between.

So what is the meaning of all this rant?
The meaning is simple - safety can be quantified, and carries a price. But how much "safe" you want your stuff to be is YOUR responsibility, not the seller.

In this case, since average customer doesn't know much about what are the levels of damages acceptable to him - he chooses to go with organizations like ARAI and NCAP.

The only point that MR Bahrgava makes (AND I agree with his logic) - is that if you drive up the price point, the customer may settle for less.
This is exact same thing which happens when you offer a guy airbags version for Rs 50000 extra.

The customer has a choice and he chooses to save money putting his life and limbs at risk.

Tomorrow, you mandate every vehicle to have every possible safety gizmos, the average customer may start scooting for cheaper alternative. Which in many case is a two wheeler.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by alpha1

This is exact same thing which happens when you offer a guy airbags version for Rs 50000 extra.

The customer has a choice and he chooses to save money putting his life and limbs at risk.

Tomorrow, you mandate every vehicle to have every possible safety gizmos, the average customer may start scooting for cheaper alternative. Which in many case is a two wheeler.

Wrong argument.
Lets say I am a builder, and I offer you a flat for 50 lakhs.
There is a choice of getting tamper proof locks which cost 5000rs.
But I sell this way

If you want doors with tamper proof locks, pay 3 lakhs extra for the safety package which includes a washing machine and fridge

This is what "most" companies are doing. You cannot buy just ABS and airbags. You also have to buy alloys, fog lamps, Stereo system, beige seat covers and what not.

Secondly, there is an acceptable standard worldwide for minimal safety. World over anything which does not match that is not allowed to be sold. If such minimal safety standards are enforced, many of his companies cash cows will not sell. That is why he has made that statement.

And nobody is mandating every safety gizmo. A reasonable chance of crash survival at 64kmph is not "every safety gizmo". If you want more safety you can pay more and get a luxury vehicle with side curtain airbags(which are now mandatory in some markets).

And I hope you have not forgotten the seat belt time. Before seat belts were compulsary, many cars did not have them. Govt intervention came in. Same argument was given then also "cost increase".

Why go to Safety. Remember EURO-I

Maruti gave lots of arguments against MPFI
1. Cost will go out of reach of people
2. Will not survive Indian fuel
...

And so on. Did any of that happen? No. When mandatory safety features come in through regulation, market takes care of the cost.

[Equus]

Originally Posted by SchumiFan

It's called Free Will. This is a democratic country and what seems important to one need not necessarily be of the same importance to others.

If one wants to ensure safety of their loved ones, please travel in tanks (like they wish) . But don't demand/compel others to do so. They might have different priorities in life.

Well, not so easy! Isnt it natural to expect a Swift would have the same build quality everywhere its sold? Most of us did think of it that way.
I think i20 was rated 4 or 5 stars (not sure exactly) and Hyundai put these stickers on its i20 cars too. Now if you find out, its meant for its EURO cousin and not the one you're riding, its FRAUD.
PS: I dont know if Hyundai is doing a la Maruti here but wouldnt be surprised now.

[civic-sense]

Originally Posted by Equus

Well, not so easy! Isnt it natural to expect a Swift would have the same build quality everywhere its sold? Most of us did think of it that way.
I think i20 was rated 4 or 5 stars (not sure exactly) and Hyundai put these stickers on its i20 cars too. Now if you find out, its meant for its EURO cousin and not the one you're riding, its FRAUD.
PS: I dont know if Hyundai is doing a la Maruti here but wouldnt be surprised now.

Exactly.

While i do agree that one's life is his responsibility alone, i don't understand the urge to absolve the company (Maruti) of any wrongdoing. By selling a substandard Swift to us they are committing a fraud on us. By buying models sold overseas we are assuming that they are built on par with those sold there. If Maruti wanted to sell a substandard one here they should have named it "Swift Substandard" so that many of us could have made an informed decision.

I don't think all those unsuspecting Swift customers bought those substandard Swifts out of free will knowing what they are getting. I wonder why no Swift owner has not sued them by now.

BTW, Hyundai is in the same mess as Maruti. The i10 has been found to have a compromised structure in the previous round of tests. Only the European duo (Figo and Polo) has passed the structure test.

[atnyia]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Oh boy this thread!

Tomorrow, you mandate every vehicle to have every possible safety gizmos, the average customer may start scooting for cheaper alternative. Which in many case is a two wheeler.

This is borderline OT. Minimum Safety standards and optional safety equipments are two different issue and this thread is about the former.
If we go by driver's freedom to choose safety, he might prefer drunk driving as well. But that's ridiculous, isn't that?
Crash tests are for ensuring minimum safety requirement, be it 46, 56 or 64 kmph. Like helmets or seatbelts.
We have come a long way from the days when 46 kmph crash tests were okay and this thing's just got to be reviewed. Cars made for safety at 46 kmph (1980s) are simply not safe enough anymore.
Why on earth one should defend an outdated standard?
Also, in the name of affordability, we shouldn't be allowing cars without windscreens. If someone is buying a car, it's structure and technology should be good enough to withstand normal operating conditions (56 kmph?)

[naveenroy]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

There was a Mr Ratner, in UK, who had a large chain of jeweller's shops. One day, he happened to say how successful the company had been through selling cheap rubbish (or words to that effect) and sales immediately plummeted. They never recovered, and it wasn't long before the once ubiquitous Ratner's could not be found on any British high street.

Mr Bhargava should be more careful what he says.

Na, I am pretty sure that he can and will get away with it. This amazing country of ours is very forgiving to most people who do wrong. Ask the politicians.

Getting back to the topic on hand, what scares me most is this - people will say "The Maruti boss says all safety testing is a sham. We don't need any safety features if we drive slowly". And believe it too. THAT scares me most.

[MaheshY1]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

Excuses.

I agree that manufacturers should be bashed severely for not providing safety options in the base variants. For getting 2 airbags and ABS, you are made to pay for useless alloys, etc.

BUT, consider this:

Due to clubbing alloys etc with safety kit, the price difference is now 1L. Do we consider 1L for two airbags and ABS too high? Are we looking at ABS+Airbags based on the cost of manufacture or the value it is providing us?

For me the value the safety kit is providing is much more than the 1L that they make me pay. I'd probably buy the ZXi and sell the alloy wheels than not buying the safety kit version at all.
MaheshY1: And that is exactly what the manufacturers want us to do.

It all depends on what value you put to safety.

Civic-Sense, that makes sense. But my finances haven't yet allowed me add even music system and seat covers with 5000 on the odo.
I barely stretched to buy a new car, as my daily commute increased 10 fold. 10kms/day to 110 Kms/day. I desperately needed a diesel with low running cost and low upfront cost. Even this has put me in some serious, but manageable debts.
I'd have taken the leap of another 40k ONLY for the safety features. 1L would have just just gotten me neck deep in debts.

Being a BHPian, I value safety, a lot. But if safety is priced at 1L further from what I could afford, that is clearly out of my reach.

P.S.: Sorry if I offended you.
And I have already decided, my next car will include at least two airbags and ABS.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by atnyia

This is borderline OT. Minimum Safety standards and optional safety equipments are two different issue and this thread is about the former.
If we go by driver's freedom to choose safety, he might prefer drunk driving as well. But that's ridiculous, isn't that?
Crash tests are for ensuring minimum safety requirement, be it 46, 56 or 64 kmph. Like helmets or seatbelts.
We have come a long way from the days when 46 kmph crash tests were okay and this thing's just got to be reviewed. Cars made for safety at 46 kmph (1980s) are simply not safe enough anymore.
Why on earth one should defend an outdated standard?
Also, in the name of affordability, we shouldn't be allowing cars without windscreens. If someone is buying a car, it's structure and technology should be good enough to withstand normal operating conditions (56 kmph?)

I am not defending outdated standards.
All I am saying is that first time buyers of inexpensive vehicles usually stretch their budgets.

What is safer to be as a driver/passenger in an accident: a Maruti Alto or a Kawasaki N300? (I guess both come to about similar price).

A similar thing happens when you find people in used car market.
Today's car with more safety features compared to yesterday's car with no safety features.

Originally Posted by An engineer's view of human error

There are risks so high that we do not tolerate them, risks so small that we accept them, and in between we reduce them if the costs of doing so are not excessive

My whole post was illustration of what exactly is minimum safety standards (in some other industry) and how arbitrary and qualitative they can be. To put it succintly: there are no minimum safety standards - there are only different levels of risk acceptable to different people.

Why should you stop at 64 kmph crash test when speed limits on most of the highways in India is 80 kmph?
So again, my point is not at all about what should be the "minimum standard".
And neither is this thread about it.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Wrong argument.
Lets say I am a builder, and I offer you a flat for 50 lakhs.
There is a choice of getting tamper proof locks which cost 5000rs.
But I sell this way

If you want doors with tamper proof locks, pay 3 lakhs extra for the safety package which includes a washing machine and fridge

This is what "most" companies are doing. You cannot buy just ABS and airbags. You also have to buy alloys, fog lamps, Stereo system, beige seat covers and what not.

I agree that this is wrong way of positioning safety equipment.
But the flip side is this:

If a customer truly values his safety - he will not be put off by washing machine and fridge that are coming in tagged along.

If you stay in a residential colony with inbuilt video conferencing facility, the builder would've also added a lot of other premium services and offerings which are of no use to you.

But tomorrow due to competition the customers may even start getting a choice of only tamper proof locks. (because someone would try to establish a lower price point for increased sale and then everyone tries to match it)

The fact that this hasn't happened till now simply mirrors what Indian customers really value.

And I hope you have not forgotten the seat belt time. Before seat belts were compulsary, many cars did not have them. Govt intervention came in. Same argument was given then also "cost increase".

Why go to Safety. Remember EURO-I

Maruti gave lots of arguments against MPFI
1. Cost will go out of reach of people
2. Will not survive Indian fuel
...

And so on. Did any of that happen? No. When mandatory safety features come in through regulation, market takes care of the cost.

I am not against any of the improvements in the standards.
In fact the more stringent they become the more benefit customers reap ultimately (perhaps in terms that we cannot ascribe monetary value).

[2000rpm]

Originally Posted by SchumiFan

It's called Free Will. This is a democratic country and what seems important to one need not necessarily be of the same importance to others.

If one wants to ensure safety of their loved ones, please travel in tanks (like they wish). But don't demand/compel others to do so. They might have different priorities in life.

Would you also call playing Loud speakers at midnight as free will. This is not just about others, it also affects us.

Going by the same logic, in a democracy, I shouldn't be restricted to carrying 5 people in my sedan as it can certainly carry more!! Who is the government to restrict that?

One should also be allowed to drive after drinking, as one has the right to choose how much safety one wants in a democracy! Why the farce of strict breath checking on weekend nights which convert traffic policemen to millionaires?

High power cars with poor braking and insufficient tyres cause equal (if not more) threat to me on road!!! If the government cant ensure adherence to driving rules, it should atleast try to minimize the damage caused by the failure to do so.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by alpha1

In fact first of all what is the definition of Safe?
I see that even Jeroen is also quite taken aback by the lack of vision shown by Bhargava's statement.

But then I ask same thing to him - in a ship or an offshore platform how much safe is safe enough?

Since you ask, I will tell you; All the companies I have worked for as a Navy Officer had a zero fatality policy, one way or the other. Did it also ensure no fatal accidents. Not always entirely, but whereever you start introducing such policies, back them up with budgets, training, follow ups etc. accident rates tumble down

I have a fairly large organisation working for me, Pan India, and I have, on top of an already elobarate safety regime enhanced it further. I've made sure all my managers are fully aware of the policies, that they understand what I expect them to do, how to communicate and how to execute upon it, it's part of their annual performance review, we have allocated budget for training, safety equipment, medical reviews etc. Will it ultemately ensure 100% no fatalities? Again the answer is no, but we are making damn sure that we try to avoid them and ensure the organisation at large is accutely aware on how serious we are taking this and it has the means and the resources to execute upon it.

Now back to Indian road safety. For the purpose of this discussion I would say it needs and it is, I believe, measured in fatalities and or serious accidents. You could drill it down to a more granular level and cut and slice the accident statistics in any way you see fit. To me, that is a bit of an academic exercise, because I think no matter how you slice or dice the conclussion is going to be identical. Indian road safety is appaling in whatever shape form or format you look at it.

So debating what should be done first, or who should be doing what is in my opinion not relevant. Everybody that can contribute, should. India is not even close to a level of road safety where you might want to start to wander how much further do you want to enhance it.

Originally Posted by alpha1

The meaning is simple - safety can be quantified, and carries a price. But how much "safe" you want your stuff to be is YOUR responsibility, not the seller.

Does the buyer have a responsibility, sure enough. But again we are deflecting from the original discussion and are doing what I see Mr. Bhargava do. He points to others who should take responsibilty.

I object to that, because he, as a seller does have a responsibility in all of this. And I for one don't think the only responsibility of a company is to operate exactly within the law. I'm sure his cars do comply with whatever relevant Indian (safety) regulations there might be.

My company provide a safety policy and framework that supersedes anything we should be doing for our employees and contractors alike by law, by a very large margin. Why? Because we believe we have a responsibily towards all those individuals that work for us. Its not by law, but by choice on what we believe needs doing. We set our own standards beyond the legal requirements and live up to them. And just like Mr Bhargava, we also work in a very competitive industry with slim margins and we can make it work.

It is Mr Bhargava choice to built the cars he is building, so therefor he is accountable for them. Obviously, in a legal but also in a moral way or any other way I can think of.

The notion that as a businss leader you are only responsible for ensuring the company works "within the law" and makes money/profit for its shareholders is or should be an outdated concept. Companies are part of society and they need to play their part. Interestingly enough many companies are taking their role in society more and more serious and finding it ultemately overall beneficial for the company.

Jeroen

[civic-sense]

Originally Posted by 2000rpm

Would you also call playing Loud speakers at midnight as free will. This is not just about others, it also affects us.

Going by the same logic, in a democracy, I shouldn't be restricted to carrying 5 people in my sedan as it can certainly carry more!! Who is the government to restrict that?

One should also be allowed to drive after drinking, as one has the right to choose how much safety one wants in a democracy! Why the farce of strict breath checking on weekend nights which convert traffic policemen to millionaires?

High power cars with poor braking and insufficient tyres cause equal (if not more) threat to me on road!!! If the government cant ensure adherence to driving rules, it should atleast try to minimize the damage caused by the failure to do so.

Free will should be allowed as long as it doesn't trouble others. Playing loud music that troubles others is not the same as not buying an unsafe car. Here he is only putting himself in trouble.

Overloading your car is a hazard to other vehicles on the road. Drinking and driving can put other vehicles at risk.

Safety kit should be made optional across all variants so that even LXi buyers could have airbags and ABS. It should be made optional in ZXI also because morons who want to put their lives at risk should be allowed to do so.