[nbk.0707]

Originally Posted by Parm

Was the Fortuner fitted with a bull bar in front of the front bumper, which did not let the airbag deployment sensors work upon impact?

Hello Parm Sir,

Your location tells me you are related to Toyota in some manner, I have personally known the owner and This vehicle was not fitted with a Bull Bar.

Originally Posted by Yeldo

That is a valid question, but Toyota itself sells a bull bar as an official accessory.

Mahindra sells one for Scorpio too, but the accessory brochure says that bull bars are NOT meant for vehicles equipped with airbags.

Yeldo Sir, Hello!

Yes! Toyota sells a Bull Bar (In general language), Toyota sells this accessory as the Grill Guard, The fitment of this particular accessory, is done on the bumper & Not on the frame as other after market fitment, This guard is designed to completely transfer the impact to the bumper and not to the chassis.

Rest all,

The owner still believes in Toyota Need proof Three other Fortuners in the family.

[Parm]

Originally Posted by nbk.0707

Hello Parm Sir,

Your location tells me you are related to Toyota in some manner, I have personally known the owner and This vehicle was not fitted with a Bull Bar.

The owner still believes in Toyota Need proof Three other Fortuners in the family.

Hi NBK, the only relation I have with Toyota is that I drive a Toyota and I believe in Toyota's products and its manufacturing very strongly. I have driven the Hilux past 250,000kms since 2010.

I just asked a question to confirm the fitment of the bull bar, because in our country people do fit front and rear metal bars to protect the bumpers against any kind of impacts.

Glad to hear the family still believes in the Toyota products. I do empathize with the family and the loss of the life due to the accident.

India has the highest number of road deaths in the world, and I have lost 2 relatives just due to their own negligence and no fault of the vehicle they were driving. That's what prompted me to ask the question.

My apology if my question caused any discomfort or disrespect to anyone.

[sudev]

By agreeing for a settlement the brand avoided setting a legal precedent for others to cite in future cases.

Without accident pictures or expert reports it is conjecture if the air bags should have deployed or not. Naming of directors as parties is matter of legal thrusts and feints and IMHO does not really bring us to the core of the issue.

Can any car be made accident proof? Should air bags deploy always and in all situations? From whatever facts are available there is no input on what speed vehicle was at?

[tbppjpr]

Originally Posted by sudev

Can any car be made accident proof? Should air bags deploy always and in all situations? From whatever facts are available there is no input on what speed vehicle was at?

First question is do the airbags even save lives? They are there to protect against few injuries which may turn out fatal later. All the safety features work together in combination, none of the feature can be blamed individually.

You are right, first we need to know how the accident happened? What was the speed, angle of flipping down? Was the driver buckled up? Most of the times its seatbelt which saves life in case of vehicle flips.

We don't even know how the investigation was carried out.

[honeybee]

The Accord manual states very clearly that the airbags won't deploy in case of a rollover. Can it still be called a defect??

Now, was this a compensation 'awarded' by the court, or was it an out of court settlement between the parties?

[joe_antony]

Originally Posted by honeybee

Well, if a vehicle topples over after hitting a post on a flat road, do you think the vehicle was being driven according to the applicable laws, following all the precautions and speed limits?

I have seen many of those SUVs doing 130+ in highways which is simply suicidal. Many don't have any knowledge about vehicles and their capabilities. These tall, top heavy, body on frame SUVs have high center of gravity and in such speed a quick flick (on overtaking or avoid a live cattle on the road) would easily topple the vehicle. I have seen many racing with sedans and hatches out on the highways, utterly stupid.

[Tushar]

The driver passing away after all safety features functioned is a different matter, but airbags failing to deploy is a big issue. In this case the settlement seems more like property damage reimbursement. One incident cannot be used as the gauge for an entire brand, but all I can say is that this would be a colossally bigger issue if this happened in say, the USA.

[phynix123]

Originally Posted by honeybee

I suggest the court should also start taking into consideration factors such as the speed of the vehicle at the time of impact as contributory negligence and reduce the compensation.

This kind of a judgement does increase the chance of more rash driving when one tends to reply on the technical safety features of the car - and a resultant payout by either the manufacturer or insurance company - instead of one's own driving discipline and following traffic rules.

Suppose I hit a pedestrian: my defence? The ABS failed to kick in, or the EBD didn't work!

You do have a point here, but it's only based on assumption that people will risk their life for the compensation they "might" get

No matter who's fault the accident was, be it due to rash driving (once again, I don't encourage rash driving in any way here), if the safety equipment in a car fails, it's the manufacturer's fault. If the airbag doesn't deploy it's visible (ABS not kicking in can't be proved easily) to everyone, and the blame should always go to the manufacturer for providing with inferior quality equipment and compromising with safety of it's customers.

There's a point of view where it's speculated that a safer car also makes a driver less careful. (discussions on similar lines were done multiple times in this forum) This view may be correct to a certain degree. Specially when we almost always use terms like "confidence inspiring car", "under powered engine compared to body dynamics" etc. These terms actually suggest that as we start feeling safer inside a car, we being human beings and petrol heads, start venturing into the zone of those thrilling higher speed adventures. After all, human beings are gullible. But the point here is that if an equipment in a car fails to do what it's supposed to do, then there's every reason to sue the manufacturer.

[nbk.0707]

Originally Posted by Parm

Hi NBK,

India has the highest number of road deaths in the world, and I have lost 2 relatives just due to their own negligence and no fault of the vehicle they were driving. That's what prompted me to ask the question.

My apology if my question caused any discomfort or disrespect to anyone.

Hello Parm Sir,

No apologies , all I said was in good spirit, My apologies if I sounded a bit sarcastic, Talking about road deaths every year since 2001 I have lost some one close to me. However every incidence had one condition of error.

Talking about the passive restraint systems, They can be fatal at times too, Last year one of my known families were involved in an accident, A bike brushed the driver side door on their Pajero Sport, Driver got startled as the air bag opened up (Still don't know how?), Result: The vehicle went on a left turn and rolled over four times, The occupants got near fatal injuries and three months in critical care.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by phynix123

There's a point of view where it's speculated that a safer car also makes a driver less careful. (discussions on similar lines were done multiple times in this forum) This view may be correct to a certain degree. Specially when we almost always use terms like "confidence inspiring car", "under powered engine compared to body dynamics" etc. These terms actually suggest that as we start feeling safer inside a car, we being human beings and petrol heads, start venturing into the zone of those thrilling higher speed adventures. After all, human beings are gullible. But the point here is that if an equipment in a car fails to do what it's supposed to do, then there's every reason to sue the manufacturer.

I've always held that view, based on various reports and statistics in western countries. The longer I live in India the less I believe this mechanism applies universally. I dont want to be offending anybody, but after two and half years in India, 55.000 km behind my driver in our Innova and 10.000 km on my RE Bullet I have gained a certain, lets say, impression.

So the above mechanism might apply in India, but you only need to look at the traffic in India to conclude that the opposite certainly isnt true. I.e. no or very little protection doesnt appear to instill a sense of vulnerbility at all in Indian road users. Just about everybody drives as if invincible.

We have multiple discussion on (road / car) safety on this forum, but safety out there on the Indian roads appears to be the last thing on any driver's mind. Getting in front of the next guy seems to be more the mindset. never mind how.

So if lack of safety doesnt concern anybody, other than on forum such as these, it make you wonder if safer cars would actually contribute to even more rash driving for some as per the above? It hardly seems possible.

Jeroen

[SchumiFan]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Getting in front of the next guy seems to be more the mindset. never mind how.

So if lack of safety doesnt concern anybody, other than on forum such as these, it make you wonder if safer cars would actually contribute to even more rash driving for some as per the above? It hardly seems possible.

Jeroen

This is what I have been pitching in various safety threads.

I take the bus to my work and have to walk at least half a kilometer back to my home under varied road conditions. I almost see an accident waiting to happen every day owing to unruly driving on the road.

It is not about providing a safe car but to also understand everything has a limit. No matter how safe the car is, safe driving is the platform for safe travels. Only when we have safe driving practices, any amount of safety devices inside the car can contribute to our safety.

Else we risk our lives and others as well not knowing our limitations.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by SchumiFan

It is not about providing a safe car but to also understand everything has a limit. No matter how safe the car is, safe driving is the platform for safe travels. Only when we have safe driving practices, any amount of safety devices inside the car can contribute to our safety..

Well, this is somewhat different discussion. Here we are discussing the idea that for some a safer car will actually lead to even less unsafe driving.

I'm firmly of the opinion that as a general rule, providing anybody, rash driver or not, with a safer car (e.g. cars equipped with multiple Airbags, adequate crumplezone, ABS etc) will save lives. Period. Because that's just how it works. To use a methodology some have used in other threads, if everything remains the same, but the safety of the individual cars goes up, it stands to reason the fatalities do come down. You could argue if we should have airbags made mandatory, or optional, or that we should spend time and money on educating drivers, building better infrastructure etc.

But still, safer cars will lead to fewer fatalities.

My previous point is more that no matter whether a car has a lot or very few safety features, doesn't appear to be making a lot of impression on most Indian drivers. If you believe you are invincible, having or not having an airbag is not going to change your behaviour.

But if such an invincible person finds him/herself in a crash the airbag might still save him/her life!

So I agree with you that by providing more safety features on a car, we would not necessarily see safer driving, but we would still see fewer fatalities because these safety features will help save the live of these invincible nut cases, pardon my French.

For some doing so, remains an individual choice, for me its more about in what sort of society you want to live. In many cases it comes down to a balance between individual choice (freedom) if you like and (some) restriction through legislation or other means (e.g. public opinion, peer pressure)

I also believe these very complex matters (i.e. Indian road safety) require a very wel thought out balanced approach. So not just one digital choice, like fit mandatory airbags. Multiple parties/stakeholders need to be engaged as that would increase the overall effect and acceptance of whatever multiple measure get taken.

Jeroen

[ranjan84]

Originally Posted by Latheesh

Is it anyway related to recent Takata air bag issue (even though defect seems to be different) which forced them to recall many Toyota, Lexus vehicles?

May be Toyota do not want to get in to more trouble continuing the legal battle.

Different defects but core issue seems to be malfunctioning airbag sensors.

A friend who's in the market for the new Etios, is engaged in a mail conversation with the VOC email-id on the Toyota Bharat website. He wants to know if the sensors on the Etios are indeed fail-safe and not from the defective (Takata) batch. Last I heard, Toyota's response has been fairly ambiguous.

They don't know yet and will check with HQ before they get back. Friend's also tried probing dealers on this, with little or no clarity on the subject yet.

[sinharishi]

Originally Posted by ranjan84

He wants to know if the sensors on the Etios are indeed fail-safe and not from the defective (Takata) batch.

You might want to read this :

https://www.facebook.com/Ajit.Menon2...04710521175351

[MHG]

Originally Posted by sinharishi

You might want to read this :

https://www.facebook.com/Ajit.Menon2...04710521175351

Do you have details of the velocity of the crash ? The car looks remarkably stable judging from the image. Since the Liva hasn't yet been tested by Global NCAP, I am quite curious.