[SchumiFan]

Originally Posted by djpeesh

This is not a personal attack but as per you, there's no need to ensure cars driving on it meet a threshold of impact testing to even 70% of its mandated speed limir?

In that case, why bother with grade separation, restricting autorickshaws and scooters etc?

There is a guideline currently in place and the cars that are sold pass them as well.

This has already been discussed in another thread with multiple information provided by a person who studied (I think) at ARAI mentioned it with examples aplenty.

My reply was purely to the BHPian who was asking for a safe car for his family. Hence the reason I asked to define safety and that it varied from person to person.

My only driving experience was in abroad where there were a minimum of six airbags in any car along with TC/ESC. Blind Spot Monitoring, Knee airbag were some of the added features in the new age cars as well.

Obviously I don't feel 'safe' in the cars sold here but then the regulations permit their sales and the manufacturers willingly oblige.

That's why I said, as a driver/person, my safety is my concern. Take an educated decision and drive to your limits. Rest leave it to God or nature.

There are a lot of things that need fixing before we arm our cars with all safety features like in Europe. I would start by getting repeated offenders off the road. That will solve half the problem.

[shiraz]

Schumifan, it would be interesting to debate what's easier : equipping cars with safety features or getting bad drivers off the road.

Let me take a more radical stand here.

1. There is a huge business opportunity to create a new market segment here, the "safe" car. If you could spend enough marketing dollars to open the public's eyes to how scarily unsafe it is to even drive a block, then you can loosen purse strings to pay for safety features.

2. That apart, as has repeatedly been stressed in this thread, the government (regulator) needs to make minimum safety standards mandatory. And given how unsafe our roads are, this minimum should be way higher (yes!!!) than European safety standards. Only after should one bring in commercial considerations. A bad analogy, but if you were going to Antarctica (much colder than India) you'd carry much more warm clothes than when going to Madras.

[Chetan_Rao]

If potential misuse was the decisive factor to block progress, the world would look very different, if it even existed (that also happened due to a progressive phenomenon, didn't it?)

Every man-made object around us is a result of progress made somewhere by someone over the ages.

EVERYTHING in the Universe has a downside (real or imaginary), so should we just rewind time back to 't-zero' and cease to exist, or should we do the best we can while moving forward?

P.S. I wonder if Mr. Bhargava lets himself or his loved ones get driven around in a car sans safety equipment. Does he practice what he preaches?

[SchumiFan]

Originally Posted by shiraz

Schumifan, it would be interesting to debate what's easier : equipping cars with safety features or getting bad drivers off the road.

Let me take a more radical stand here.

1. There is a huge business opportunity to create a new market segment here, the "safe" car.

2. That apart, as has repeatedly been stressed in this thread, the government (regulator) needs to make minimum safety standards mandatory. And given how unsafe our roads are, this minimum should be way higher (yes!!!) than European safety standards. Only after should one bring in commercial considerations. A bad analogy, but if you were going to Antarctica (much colder than India) you'd carry much more warm clothes than when going to Madras.

One can carry all the warm clothes you want to Antartica, but if they leave it in the bag and go out in the open, one is sure to be killed (ergo: idiot). It is not a matter of equipping one with all the necessary protection but also the need to educate them as to 'how to use it' and underline the fact that it doesn't make the person 'death-proof'. Also the need to increase punishment where an accident due to negligence results in the death of a person. That will teach the person to drive sensibly or take him off the road.

Minimum safety standards will be ABS + 2 Airbags for a start. I would gladly pay the money if the safety features are there in the car. The only one currently suited to my requirement will be the Ecosport AT.

To put it simple: there are land mines on the road, you are preaching to wear protective suits as many as possible, I am asking for the mines to be removed from the road.

[Urban_Nomad]

Originally Posted by SchumiFan

To put it simple: there are land mines on the road, you are preaching to wear protective suits as many as possible, I am asking for the mines to be removed from the road.

OK! United States, where you say you have maximum experience driving; has an excellent infrastructure and a very safe driving practices. At least many many millennia ahead of us whichever way you cut it

Why then, is there a need to mandate ABS & Airbags for all cars sold there? And why do we get to choose only one over the other? Why cant we have both?

Even after my exercising all the control and precaution I could land in a freak mishap I could do nothing about. This "passive" safety device might mean the difference between going to the hospital or straight to the morgue. Do read up on active vs passive safety. In simple words, its preventing and accident vs protecting an occupants in case of an accident. Both are important

And I keep asking this question - Do you condone or condemn what the politicos are proposing vis a vis car safety in India? Please do respond. And remember, the discussion is beyond just inclusion of ABS and Airbags. These testes for brains are talking about forgoing tests for basic structural integrity of a vehicle

[SRKHYD]

I understand the point of view that, someone who is planning to upgrade from a 2 wheeler to 4 wheeler for more safety (other reasons) - will think twice about price point. Someone who is planning for, say 10 lac car, will IMO be OK in spending extra 1 lac for safety features.

But if manufacturers make these safety kits optionally available across models / variants, do you see it as WIN-WIN case?

[shiraz]

Urban_Nomad, Agree with you on active vs passive safety. And yes, both are required. Another interesting point you make is that even in the US the regulator has to mandate a minimum safety requirement. It's true: without enforcement, even people of developed nations won't follow rules. That's precisely why the government needs to step in and literally increase the value of human life by making safety compulsory.

[djpeesh]

Another point that just struck me was that there have a number of instances on the accidents thread where a car/truck has crossed over the median and run into oncoming traffic.

Would that also be a case of people being reckless, if they are saved by airbags or ABS?

[Lobogris]

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.

No one is saying the the driver would try to ram into a stationary object just because their car has ABS and airbags. Ignorant idiots on the so-called safe cars are willing to take chances with overspeeding and overtakes that no sane person would normally take just because they think they can walk away even if their judgement goes wrong. This is the invincibility syndrome mentioned earlier, at least from what I understand. In a lot of overtakings gone wrong, the driver doesn't brake until the very last minute thinking he can still make it and this ensures the car stays above or near the 64km/h.

Actually, the 64 KM limit was incorporated after a lot of studies of accidents over the years. These studies showed that the majority of accidents took place at this or lower speeds. In fact the UN and several EU laws mandate 56 KMPH as the threshold. Most of the time both drivers or the single driver in case of the car colliding with a stationary object would try to brake and the speed would fall quickly. Furthermore, even cars that get 5star ratings fail if the threshold is raised to even 80 KMPH. After 70-80 kmph, it is currently very difficult to prevent injuries to the occupants despite incorporating crumple zones and airbags. Of course every accident has a lot of variables and people do survive high speed crashes. However currently we do not have the technology to design a car that would always protect the occupants at speeds higher than 70-80 kmph. In the West, we are now moving towards prevention of crashes by using collision avoidance systems such as lane departure warning/ correction, automatic braking, blind spot monitoring and self driving vehicles. These are the measures that will reduce injuries and fatalities in the coming decade.

[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?
Yes, I agree our cars do not meet European or Japanese or US safety standards, but are we prepared to pay the increased costs for the same standards, however tiny they may be? We want to save a few thousand rupees and skip on airbags or even ABS, and yes put that same money into a high end audio system or some bling bling on the car!!!
We are getting what we are paying for and what we deserve, no manufacturer wants to skimp on features on purpose, he will only provide for what is being asked for and what sells.
Asking the government to step in to legislate all kinds of safety devices and expect the manufacturer to absorb costs will not happen. The day we collectively feel the need to keep safety features as our basic necessity we will get them in even an auto-rickshaw forget a car.

[rev_rohit]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

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?

When we compare two data, it is essential that the two samples should be comparable.
Accidents in US and in India have very different factors. We need to include Indian factors like those mentioned above before making any decisions regarding safety standards.
It is not necessary that making cars more safer in India will have similar impact on accident related mortality as that in US. We need to have statistical analysis of Indian demography before coming to any conclusions as sometimes statistical results are totally different from what appears to the naked eyes.

[SchumiFan]

Originally Posted by Urban_Nomad

OK! United States, where you say you have maximum experience driving; has an excellent infrastructure and a very safe driving practices. At least many many millennia ahead of us whichever way you cut it

Why then, is there a need to mandate ABS & Airbags for all cars sold there? And why do we get to choose only one over the other? Why cant we have both?

Even after my exercising all the control and precaution I could land in a freak mishap I could do nothing about. This "passive" safety device might mean the difference between going to the hospital or straight to the morgue. Do read up on active vs passive safety. In simple words, its preventing and accident vs protecting an occupants in case of an accident. Both are important

And I keep asking this question - Do you condone or condemn what the politicos are proposing vis a vis car safety in India? Please do respond. And remember, the discussion is beyond just inclusion of ABS and Airbags. These testes for brains are talking about forgoing tests for basic structural integrity of a vehicle

Each country's safety demands must be adjudged by the driving practices. Considering how less considerate we are to each other on the road, we will be safe driving tanks made for military. There is need to undertake a study or use data regarding the accidents and resulting loss of lives in India and take decisions based on that.

There is no regulation to currently to standardise ABS+Airbags in car. Let it be implemented first, which is proposed. Most roads I have seen have a speed limit of 80 here in my state. Considering the current test are done at 55KMPH which is almost 70% of the speed limit, I guess it is safe enough if the cars pass those test.

We need to start enforcing the existing rules strictly before we vouch for more changes in the regulations.

USA has considerably higher average speed and varying conditions that are seldom seen in our country (65~70 mph, snow, black ice etc) and hence the requirement for having additional safety equipments. They have the infrastructure to promote safe driving and are followed without much deviation.

We don't have good roads to drive on and good drivers who share the road with us. No amount of safety equipment will help us overcome those handicaps.

[JonSnow]

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?

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.

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Yes, I agree our cars do not meet European or Japanese or US safety standards, but are we prepared to pay the increased costs for the same standards, however tiny they may be? We want to save a few thousand rupees and skip on airbags or even ABS, and yes put that same money into a high end audio system or some bling bling on the car!!!

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.

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

We are getting what we are paying for and what we deserve, no manufacturer wants to skimp on features on purpose, he will only provide for what is being asked for and what sells.
Asking the government to step in to legislate all kinds of safety devices and expect the manufacturer to absorb costs will not happen. The day we collectively feel the need to keep safety features as our basic necessity we will get them in even an auto-rickshaw forget a car.

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.

[shiraz]

Schumifan, the two needn't be sequential. If enforcing the law was so easy, Delhi wouldn't be the rape capital of the world. By contrast, make a random law to incentivize sub-4m cars, and all the automakers fall in line.

Secondly, I want safer cars precisely because we don't have good roads and drivers!

[SchumiFan]

Originally Posted by shiraz

Schumifan, the two needn't be sequential. If enforcing the law was so easy, Delhi wouldn't be the rape capital of the world. By contrast, make a random law to incentivize sub-4m cars, and all the automakers fall in line.

Secondly, I want safer cars precisely because we don't have good roads and drivers!

I never said it was easy. Even I want them to enforce it better than what is currently being done.

I think we keep going round and round on the same point but with different perspective of the problem. It's best I stop it here since I have no more to add to the thread.

Thanks for the insights