[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by JonSnow

Sorry but I disagree. Just because there are a lot of bad drivers on the road, the good ones don't deserve safety? If people are reckless and don't follow the basic precautions like wearing seatbelts, it's their choice. Let them take a chance with their lives. Why should the rest suffer.



Yes many of us are ready to pay the increased costs even if they are high. Lot of people amoung us go for top end variants for the safety features, not for the bling blings. The extra gadgets in top end models are superfluous and we are forced to pay for them just because we want safety features.



Nobody is asking manufacturers to absorb the costs. Let them pass it on. We are ready to pay for it. What we dislike is being forced to pay for other unnecessary gadgets in order to go for safety features. Peple were averse to seatbelts also initially. They have become standard only because they were made mandatory.

There are top end variants of almost each car which give basic safety features like ABS/EBD and airbags. The safety conscious can buy them, I did. Please reject car models and makers which don't give such options.

If manufacturers are forced to add features which increase costs, the general public will not buy since base models (with all safety features) will cost more, why should that be legislated in a free economy?

Seat belts are mandatory present in all cars, how many people use them? Lets not kid ourselves saying its mandatory, in fact there are posts in this very forum and some other ones where in members have been asking how to disable the annoying driver seat belt required beep from the Storme!!! So much for mandatory stuff.

No amount of safety features including a self driving car will save even a safe driver from moronic drivers and road users such as pedestrians and animals.
What I am getting at is, instead of an academic discussion on adding more and more safety features in cars, by a government or court ruling, we should allow the market to mature gradually, initially high end models or variants may get them, as these grow popular, more and more cars and models will be forced to provide the features because of competition. Meanwhile serious efforts need to be made along with severe fines and jail terms for law breakers, moronic driving and causing danger on the roads.

[Gaur]

I always felt the government was a bit overambitious in releasing the policy related to crash regulations with the deadline for 2017, to me it seems to be a bit unrealistic.

The companies would have to first undergo a basic test of all the vehicles they sell, the number of variants they sell will definitely add to the complexity.
After the tests to identify the problem areas and to fix them will definitely be a uphill task given the 2017 deadline.

As far as NCAP tests go, these tests are not mandatory, in europe it is the ECE tests which are mandatory, we in India can have something in line with ECE tests, these tests are less severe than NCAP hence would allow manufacturers to provide some basic level of protection and then we can finally graduate to higher level of protection through NCAP , may be by 2020.

This would also give the government and manufacturers some time to educate the masses who are at this time ignorant of the benefits of having safe vehicle.

Originally Posted by zenren

Please note that the NCAP tests are done at 64 km/h and against an identical weight - even a Nano on a highway goes above that speed and might be crashing into something 5 times its weight. No crash test agency is guaranteeing safety for crashes above that speed and for weights that are much more than your car. Very few people realize the weight factor in crash test.

In case of a Nano hitting an object 5 times its weight, the severity of the accident will depend on whether the object is stationary or moving and if moving then in which direction, same as the Nano or opposite. in all these case the resultant will be different, believe me all these possibilities are taken care of while designing these tests. These tests keep on evolving with the inputs received from real world cases. New crash barriers, new dummies new scenarios all are taken care of.

I would say having something is better than nothing,especially when its about your life.

[Ashir]

Originally Posted by Gaur

I always felt the government was a bit overambitious in releasing the policy related to crash regulations with the deadline for 2017, to me it seems to be a bit unrealistic.

The companies would have to first undergo a basic test of all the vehicles they sell, the number of variants they sell will definitely add to the complexity.
After the tests to identify the problem areas and to fix them will definitely be a uphill task given the 2017 deadline.

That's a very appropriate input from a professional who himself is involved in crash tests.

Sir, what I know from my past experience is that every car is crash tested before, even if its virtually. So the mesh models are already ready and basic tests won't take much time. Also I had found in my internship that the industry has already started preparing itself with the stricter safety rules. I think 2 years time would be sufficient to make changes.

These are for structural strength. But devices like airbags, abs, esp, etc could be added without much of changes required since these are already present in higher variants.

Originally Posted by Gaur

I would say having something is better than nothing,especially when its about your life.

I totally agree with you. At least there are some steps being taken. And eventually they might reach the top of the ladder. And till then, I hope the people would also be aware of their safety.

[Gaur]

Originally Posted by Ashir

That's a very appropriate input from a professional who himself is involved in crash tests.

Sir, what I know from my past experience is that every car is crash tested before, even if its virtually. So the mesh models are already ready and basic tests won't take much time. Also I had found in my internship that the industry has already started preparing itself with the stricter safety rules. I think 2 years time would be sufficient to make changes.

These are for structural strength. But devices like airbags, abs, esp, etc could be added without much of changes required since these are already present in higher variants.

You are correct about the virtual testing part but there are various other factors as well, companies cannot completely rely on virtual simulation alone they have to compulsorily undergo physical tests to validate the simulation results. Currently there is no credible infrastructure to provide with crash testing facilities.

Also the design is not driven by crash regulations alone, NVH, durability, manufacturing constraints and cost also provide with design inputs. what may be good from crash point of view many not be possible from manufacturing point of view.

Add to it the combination of vehicles, for e.g an petrol swift will exhibit different behaviour from an diesel swift in crash test. I don't think manufacturers currently have this capability to take up so many tasks at a time i.e work on improving crashworthiness of new vehicles and update current ones as well.

A normal vehicle design cycle if it is based on an existing platform easily takes 3 to 5 years even a facelift will take around 2+ years.

So a vehicle which is supposed to launch in 2016 is already half way through its development cycle. considering the number of vehicles lined up for launch in the Indian market in the next 2-3 years you can understand the complexity.

I Feel the manufacturers would be overwhelmed by the amount of tasks at their hand.

[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

why are we making a big fuss about safety standards? or rather the diluting of perceived standards or lack of one? How many people on the roads, drive with seat-belts fastened, children strapped in rear seats, fix child seats, do not use high beams, wear a helmet, drive on the right side of the roads, not cut other people off, do not hog roads, not drive on the right most lane, zigzag.. and the list of offenses is endless.
Will the world's safest car, save anyone violating the above basic road manners or rules?
.

I completely agree with you regarding the fact that improvement in driving habits is vital and it would save more lives than safety features alone. However it is wrong to forgo safety measures just because people are driving badly. In fact that makes safety features even more important.

Let us try an analogy. If we have an area with high crime where there are frequent home invasions, robberies and assaults, would you say that one should not put extra locks, steel doors, alarms systems etc until and unless there is better policing and better judicial system? Both measures have to be taken in tandem. One can change the criminal nature of the people but one can try to protect oneself by installing a stronger door, an alarm system, going out vigilantly etc. Similarly one can't change people's driving habits but one can choose to buy a safer car at least. Driving habits would take decades to change but safer cars can be introduced in a couple of years.

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by Lobogris

Let us try an analogy. If we have an area with high crime where there are frequent home invasions, robberies and assaults, would you say that one should not put extra locks, steel doors, alarms systems etc until and unless there is better policing and better judicial system? Both measures have to be taken in tandem. One can change the criminal nature of the people but one can try to protect oneself by installing a stronger door, an alarm system, going out vigilantly etc. Similarly one can't change people's driving habits but one can choose to buy a safer car at least. Driving habits would take decades to change but safer cars can be introduced in a couple of years.

what is the use of multiple locks if one has the habit of leaving the doors unlocked? similarly what is the use of airbags and abs if one chooses not to fasten seat belts or take your children on your lap in the front seat?

Basic road manners leave a lot to be desired, as I said before the worlds safest car will not save anyone if we choose not to follow rules.

Again I quote myself, even today safe cars are available across models albeit at the higher price spectrum. If one is safety conscious one can choose the fully equipped models. The reason manufacturers are selling safety equipment in top end models with other bells and whistles is because we the public are foolish enough not to appreciate the value of safety features yet are ready to pay for gizmos like a sound system or leather seats.
The day we are willing not to compromise on safety features, all car makers will release basic models with all safety equipment built in.
What I am against is making silly rules to force car makers to supply all kinds of safety features right now, taking a hit on their profits and yet having morons drive as they please without seat belts etc.
today's sad situation is I may be in the worlds safest car, and if a badly maintained truck t bones me, my car won't save my life.

[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

what is the use of multiple locks if one has the habit of leaving the doors unlocked? similarly what is the use of airbags and abs if one chooses not to fasten seat belts or take your children on your lap in the front seat?

Basic road manners leave a lot to be desired, as I said before the worlds safest car will not save anyone if we choose not to follow rules.

Again I quote myself, even today safe cars are available across models albeit at the higher price spectrum. If one is safety conscious one can choose the fully equipped models. The reason manufacturers are selling safety equipment in top end models with other bells and whistles is because we the public are foolish enough not to appreciate the value of safety features yet are ready to pay for gizmos like a sound system or leather seats.
The day we are willing not to compromise on safety features, all car makers will release basic models with all safety equipment built in.
What I am against is making silly rules to force car makers to supply all kinds of safety features right now, taking a hit on their profits and yet having morons drive as they please without seat belts etc.
today's sad situation is I may be in the worlds safest car, and if a badly maintained truck t bones me, my car won't save my life.

Once again, you are focusing on just one side of the problem. I again agree with you that driving etiquette and other improvements mentioned by you are vital. However that will take decades to implement unless we declare martial law and start confiscating and destroying vehicles for violations. On the other hand, safer cars can be implemented in a year or two.

You are wrong to take the worst case scenario of a truck hitting you from the side. No car car save you in that case but why ignore all the other scenarios like a frontal collision with another car where proper crumple zones and airbags could save you? In ALL nations, safety features are introduced after they are mandated by the government. In India the awareness for safety is so low that it is even more important to make it mandatory.

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by Lobogris

Once again, you are focusing on just one side of the problem. I again agree with you that driving etiquette and other improvements mentioned by you are vital. However that will take decades to implement unless we declare martial law and start confiscating and destroying vehicles for violations. On the other hand, safer cars can be implemented in a year or two.

You cannot force a mandate on manufacturers especially one that will increase prices and decrease sales, especially because the common public is not ready to absorb increased prices for mandatory safety features. Once again manufacturers are providing safety features in higher end models, so who prevents a user from buying one? If people were ready and educated the highest models with the best safety features would have sold the most, forcing all makers to provide the same, the exact opposite of that is happening and the highest selling models are the ones which have nothing except seat belts.
Is the government ready to compensate car makers for reduced sales when prices increase due safety features? Or is the government compensating safer car buying public with substantially lower insurance costs or tax benefits etc?
Give it some time, and people will get educated and safety features will get incorporated. IMHO the government is taking the correct path in a gradual increase of standards and not blindly following European set standards.

[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

You cannot force a mandate on manufacturers especially one that will increase prices and decrease sales, especially because the common public is not ready to absorb increased prices for mandatory safety features. Once again manufacturers are providing safety features in higher end models, so who prevents a user from buying one? If people were ready and educated the highest models with the best safety features would have sold the most, forcing all makers to provide the same, the exact opposite of that is happening and the highest selling models are the ones which have nothing except seat belts.
Is the government ready to compensate car makers for reduced sales when prices increase due safety features? Or is the government compensating safer car buying public with substantially lower insurance costs or tax benefits etc?
Give it some time, and people will get educated and safety features will get incorporated. IMHO the government is taking the correct path in a gradual increase of standards and not blindly following European set standards.

Yes you can force such mandates regarding safety on the manufacturers. All developed nations do so and so do many developing ones. Exact same concerns were raised there as well. Once safety features becomes mandatory, the price would fall and an 10-20K would not be such a major hardship for consumers. Every year car prices go up by more than that anyway and people still manage to buy cars.

There are safety regulations in many areas such as health care, building construction, consumer products and so on. By your logic we should allow sub standard houses to be built as that would reduce cost and people can decide whether they want to spend more to buy a safer home? Same can apply to a TV. Too bad some will shock you or catch fire- people can decide to pay more for safer ones, right? The fact is that it is an accepted responsibility of the government to mandate and enforce safety standards in all products. Common public is ignorant and cavalier about this in India and without government intervention we would be driving unsafe vehicles well in to the next century.

[djpeesh]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

You cannot force a mandate on manufacturers especially one that will increase prices and decrease sales, especially because the common public is not ready to absorb increased prices for mandatory safety features. Once again manufacturers are providing safety features in higher end models, so who prevents a user from buying one? If people were ready and educated the highest models with the best safety features would have sold the most, forcing all makers to provide the same, the exact opposite of that is happening and the highest selling models are the ones which have nothing except seat belts.
Is the government ready to compensate car makers for reduced sales when prices increase due safety features? Or is the government compensating safer car buying public with substantially lower insurance costs or tax benefits etc?
Give it some time, and people will get educated and safety features will get incorporated. IMHO the government is taking the correct path in a gradual increase of standards and not blindly following European set standards.

I completely disagree that the government can't mandate safety norms for cars. Given that they mandated emission norms that were also resisted by automakers before they complied, they're the only ones who can in fact push this sort of thing through.

SIAM has often talked about voluntary recalls, voluntary safety standards, etc. Unfortunately this doesn't always work and automakers can afford not to take things seriously as there is NO threat of action if they don't comply. A case in point was the Tavera incident where till date, absolutely no action has been taken against GM despite them reporting corruption due to FCPA rules in the US that penalize foreign corrupt practices.

The world over, there are statutory bodies responsible for ensuring safety laws are promoted and that those laws are complied with.

While one may argue that adding safety features in cars won't stop people dying on the road, I'd argue that given India's horrible road safety statistics, any start is good.

http://morth.nic.in/showfile.asp?lid=1465 is the link to the Road Accidents in India report from the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways for 2013. Look at Page 34.

Of the total road fatalities, 18.4 percent of those killed on the road die in Cars, Taxis and Jeeps. That number is a staggering 22,537! That's still not a good enough reason?

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by djpeesh

http://morth.nic.in/showfile.asp?lid=1465 is the link to the Road Accidents in India report from the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways for 2013. Look at Page 34.

Of the total road fatalities, 18.4 percent of those killed on the road die in Cars, Taxis and Jeeps. That number is a staggering 22,537! That's still not a good enough reason?

Can you tell me how many of them died because they didn't wear seat belts, or were hanging out of the jeep or were standing on the seats looking out of the sun roof? Or still how many died because they were safely belted up in a safe abs and airbag equipped car?
Data can show and cover anything as required. By the way I am not against enforcing safety standards, on the contrary I believe we must, however haphazard cry for following some EU standards is foolish IMO