[hybridpetrol]

I somehow feel that this topic of this thread is diverted to different angles, from safety, economics, to male chauvinism.
According to the topic, who needs a safest car - expert, or a novice? Usually novice gets an inferior car, probably because, with his/her less than perfect driving skills he would ruin a costly car. A novice wouldn't stay a novice forever. Soon he would learn enough driving skills to consider himself a better driver, then he thinks about all sorts of different safety equipment for his car.
I have seen many people purchase a low configuration car or a used car for practising driving skills for one or two years, and then exchange the same to buy a better car.
When there are multiple cars at home, usually hatchbacks are driven by the women at home or even the men at times, due to its ease of use in running quick errands. Taking out huge cars may be necessary only to office commute or parties for prestige purposes, and for highway drives for comfort.
Many times both the cars may not have any kind of safety equipment!

[JediKnight]

Originally Posted by vb-san

...big large SUVs or MPVs are more popular among women. But here the mighty men want to feel more macho and need to command respect - do you really need a car for that?

Sometime there are things that you don't really care about but you need the utility. In that case you just buy what suits the purpose with minimal overhead, financial or otherwise. My dad wants an A to B car driven within narrow lanes in the city. So i suggested a hatch back. I see nothing wrong with that. I have a basic cell phone while my wife uses a top end model.
I don't care about cell phones but my wife does.

Originally Posted by Vigkey

Well, by low speeds, I meant city driving speeds i.e. speeds in 20-30 kmph. The manual says ABS will not be triggered in speeds lower than 6 kmph and it should be correct. The chance of an accident and that too a dangerous one at this speed is very very minimal. Why I mentioned that is because many buyers believe ABS and Airbags are useless inn cities as they are useful only in highway speeds i.e. >60 kmph. Hope I am clear with the point now



I agree hybridpetrol. ABS comes into picture when wheels lock when brakes are applied. However, when there is no friction, it might not be of much help. Totally agree with you. Again, ABS might kick in only when the braking is sudden but I think sudden brakes can be applied even in lower speeds which might try to bring the vehicle to complete halt. However, I have felt ABS kicking in when I have applied brakes at relatively low speeds ~30 kmph on roads with loose gravel / mud / sand. That is because the wheels had locked at under the braking and ABS was trying to prevent locking. This is the slippery condition I was referring to and I also assumed that it might work similarly in wet conditions where wheels might lock under braking - however, if the conditions are too slippery to offer very less friction, braking even with ABS might result in skids. I think this is where other features like ESP and TC comes into picture.

ABS actually increases braking distance in loose gravel/mud/sand.
ABS vehicle tend to be more difficult to control in such conditions.
ABS works best when the surface has high traction like tarmac.
But it is still good to have ABS because you likely to do high speeds on tarmac.

Originally Posted by nakul0888

If in a family, if the guy is making most of the money, isn't it fair that he gets to have the more expensive car. I don't see anything wrong with it.
Of course there is usually a norm in the degree of difference of both the parties' cars here.

I mean if the guy decides to buy himself a 5 series and gifts his wife an alto, then there are some moral issues there.

But if he drives a swift and gifts his wife an eon or something, there is nothing morally wrong in that. Of course if he is making his purchase with his wife's money and then keeping the better car for himself, then he is a douchebag.

Consider this example, a guy has a budget to buy a known safe car and poorly built car. He can't stretch beyond this budget. He can

1) buy himself better car, gift his wife inferior car.
2) buy two inferior cars, and save some money.
3) gift the wife the better car, get himself inferior car

No. 2 is obviously a poor choice. Both are in unsafe cars. But there won't be any guilty feelings between the two.

No.1 is the one I agree with. The higher earning partner gets the better car. Be it wife or husband. They earned it, they work harder, they make more money, they are paying for it. Fair deal I would say.

No. 3 can be justified in a " I am sacrificing everything for my loved one " kind of thinking.
Personally I don't agree with it. If you are making most of the money in your house, you deserve to treat yourself to the stuff you want if you got the cash for it. But you should not neglect your partner. You should get him/her something "reasonable" too in case you don't have infinite money like Ambanis, which most people don't. This " reasonability" will differ from people to people. But there is no obligation on the higher earning partners to treat to the other the exact same amount of goodies that they are getting since they simply don't have the budget for it. If the other person disagrees with this even though he/she is being treated fairly then they are the ones who are being unreasonable.

In the aforementioned example the safest option for the wife since her husband CANNOT afford two good cars would be taking the public transport. I don't see any other reasonable way. No.3 would be unreasonable towards the husband in my opinion.

I think valuing a human being on "earning capacity" is very shallow.
I give priority to family over myself. I guess i am type 3 you mentioned.

[nakul0888]

Originally Posted by JediKnight

Sometime there are things that you don't really care about but you need the utility. In that case you just buy what suits the purpose with minimal overhead, financial or otherwise. My dad wants an A to B car driven within narrow lanes in the city. So i suggested a hatch back. I see nothing wrong with that. I have a basic cell phone while my wife uses a top end model.
I don't care about cell phones but my wife does.



ABS actually increases braking distance in loose gravel/mud/sand.
ABS vehicle tend to be more difficult to control in such conditions.
ABS works best when the surface has high traction like tarmac.
But it is still good to have ABS because you likely to do high speeds on tarmac.



I think valuing a human being on "earning capacity" is very shallow.
I give priority to family over myself. I guess i am type 3 you mentioned.

When did I make a valuation out of anybody. What I described is fair. If you work hard you deserve to treat yourself. There is nothing wrong in that. You can live for your family and yourself too.

Besides in a family what the husband owns is also his wife's and his kids. Everybody knows that. Then why are some people shaming others for driving better cars than their wives. It's ridiculous.
You took what I said tooooo seriously and went tooooooo
deep with it.

Damn, I should have said this in the last post.

[Sutripta]

How about this: S/He who spends more hours behind the wheel should get the safer car.

One thing I'd like to know is how many of our (auto) manufacturing lines is truly flexible. If the lines are truly flexible, option packs can be customer designed. He might have to wait a bit for delivery though.

Regards
Sutripta

[VeluM]

Originally Posted by nakul0888

I somehow don't get the point of this thread.

If in a family, if the guy is making most of the money, isn't it fair that he gets to have the more expensive car. I don't see anything wrong with it.
Consider this example, a guy has a budget to buy a known safe car and poorly built car. He can't stretch beyond this budget. He can

1) buy himself better car, gift his wife inferior car.
2) buy two inferior cars, and save some money.
3) gift the wife the better car, get himself inferior car

No. 2 is obviously a poor choice. Both are in unsafe cars. But there won't be any guilty feelings between the two.

No.1 is the one I agree with. The higher earning partner gets the better car. Be it wife or husband. They earned it, they work harder, they make more money, they are paying for it. Fair deal I would say.

No. 3 can be justified in a " I am sacrificing everything for my loved one " kind of thinking.
Personally I don't agree with it. If you are making most of the money in your house, you deserve to treat yourself to the stuff you want if you got the cash for it. But you should not neglect your partner. You should get him/her something "reasonable" too in case you don't have infinite money like Ambanis, which most people don't. This " reasonability" will differ from people to people. But there is no obligation on the higher earning partners to treat to the other the exact same amount of goodies that they are getting since they simply don't have the budget for it. If the other person disagrees with this even though he/she is being treated fairly then they are the ones who are being unreasonable.

In the aforementioned example the safest option for the wife since her husband CANNOT afford two good cars would be taking the public transport. I don't see any other reasonable way. No.3 would be unreasonable towards the husband in my opinion.

I agree with JediKnight that valuing a person based on their earning capacity is quite shallow. There is an alternative, if you think about it a bit. You've mentioned option 2 as two inferior cars assuming that the two cars would have to be inferior to be equally priced. Well, one can get two VX MT Brios (ABS, Dual Airbags) for under 14L on road while I know of people that have spent a total of around 15L on two hatches - one top model at 10 and the other base model at 5.

Anyone considering two cars can afford two cars. Which ones they buy though reflects their order of priority.

Originally Posted by Rajeevraj

The other factor is what the other party is comfortable with. For example my wife is not very comfortable driving our vento...

Does not make me look very good.

I know and appreciate your situation.

My argument has always been that even if the car gets damaged, it can be repaired or even replaced. A human being isn't replaceable, and I'd rather my family members stay undamaged as far as possible.

Originally Posted by JediKnight

ABS actually increases braking distance in loose gravel/mud/sand.
ABS vehicle tend to be more difficult to control in such conditions.
ABS works best when the surface has high traction like tarmac.
But it is still good to have ABS because you likely to do high speeds on tarmac.

The latest iterations of ABS have been tuned to react differently on sand/dirt/gravel/snow. The pulses "intelligently" become slower to allow build up of material in front of the wheels, thus negating the negative impact of ABS on such surfaces (double negative, sorry).

Originally Posted by JediKnight

I think valuing a human being on "earning capacity" is very shallow.
I give priority to family over myself. I guess i am type 3 you mentioned.

Originally Posted by nakul0888

When did I make a valuation out of anybody. What I described is fair. If you work hard you deserve to treat yourself. There is nothing wrong in that. You can live for your family and yourself too.

Besides in a family what the husband owns is also his wife's and his kids. Everybody knows that. Then why are some people shaming others for driving better cars than their wives. It's ridiculous.
You took what I said tooooo seriously and went tooooooo deep with it.

Not really. You've said that the earning member should get a better vehicle. That's like saying the spouse doesn't deserve a better car because they don't earn. That's a very chauvinistic view of things. If the situation was reversed, and if a man were unemployed would he accept a basic vehicle while his wife drove a better car? (Leaving this open for each to answer honestly to themselves).

I'm not sure how else to explain things without sounding holier-than-thou, but this is a topic I feel strongly about. Another example from my more distant family. Husband drives to work in a Verna - 30 to 45 minute commute. Wife changes two buses to work, an hour+ each way.

The reason I feel strongly about this is because this attitude generally filters down to life in general. Wife works, but does the house work too. Cooks and packs two lunches in the morning, and does some housework in the evening. Husband "treats" wife to an occasional evening out - so she doesn't have to cook - and congratulates himself for being such a caring husband!

On a side note, my apologies if this topic was not the thread starter's intention. It just fits together in my mind. There is also no intentional finger pointing, I just want to highlight a flaw in our thinking in general. Also, I appreciate the contrary opinions even though I disagree strongly with some, because it is difficult to put ones' opinions out knowing that there will be opposing views.

[Eddy]

Umm, what is the answer we are looking for in this thread ? Is the answer not obvious ?

[nakul0888]

Originally Posted by VeluM

I agree with JediKnight that valuing a person based on their earning capacity is quite shallow. There is an alternative, if you think about it a bit. You've mentioned option 2 as two inferior cars assuming that the two cars would have to be inferior to be equally priced. Well, one can get two VX MT Brios (ABS, Dual Airbags) for under 14L on road while I know of people that have spent a total of around 15L on two hatches - one top model at 10 and the other base model at 5.

Anyone considering two cars can afford two cars. Which ones they buy though reflects their order of priority.



I know and appreciate your situation.



Not really. You've said that the earning member should get a better vehicle. That's like saying the spouse doesn't deserve a better car because they don't earn. That's a very chauvinistic view of things. If the situation was reversed, and if a man were unemployed would he accept a basic vehicle while his wife drove a better car? (Leaving this open for each to answer honestly to themselves).

I'm not sure how else to explain things without sounding holier-than-thou, but this is a topic I feel strongly about. Another example from my more distant family. Husband drives to work in a Verna - 30 to 45 minute commute. Wife changes two buses to work, an hour+ each way.

The reason I feel strongly about this is because this attitude generally filters down to life in general. Wife works, but does the house work too. Cooks and packs two lunches in the morning, and does some housework in the evening. Husband "treats" wife to an occasional evening out - so she doesn't have to cook - and congratulates himself for being such a caring husband!

On a side note, my apologies if this topic was not the thread starter's intention. It just fits together in my mind. There is also no intentional finger pointing, I just want to highlight a flaw in our thinking in general. Also, I appreciate the contrary opinions even though I disagree strongly with some, because it is difficult to put ones' opinions out knowing that there will be opposing views.

The only reason the guy in my example does not buy his wife a well equipped safe car is because he CANNOT AFFORD to do so. So he has to make compromise like most people do. Buy a good car and buy a not so good car. It is OK if he chooses to use the better car which he worked hard to buy. There is no need to shame him.
I'll reverse the scenario then.
You know what, if I am a jobless person and if my wife decides to buy me a nano while she buys a polo, I won't have a single problem with it. Instead I would be grateful towards her for giving me a free car. Also I wouldn't like it if somebody criticized my wife for buying me a cheap car while she drives a sleek German car. It's her money and if she wants to buy a good car then let her be. I am happy for her. Do you get what I am trying to say?

[nakul0888]

Yeah the answer to the titular question is obvious. The novice should be in a safer car. The thread however has deviated badly in several directions to ABS and social stuff. I am feeling awkward for being a part of it.

It's all op's fault he should have just stuck to the core question.

[anilp]

Everyone deserves a "safe" car. It doesn't matter whether the person is a novice or expert. The novice has a higher statistical probability of getting into an accident, so safety is an absolute must in his/her case. The expert also requires safety since errors can happen--by self or by others. However, the way things are in India, safety features are usually available only in the top end variants. So the "nice" car part usually happens as well too when someone goes for a safe car

[igp_79]

A novice is a person, who is new to the whole driving thing or does not have experience behind the wheel. His/her driving profile is typically school runs, market runs, daily commute to work etc. They are not very confident with their driving and so limit their driving to intra-city and hassle free routes. They are generally slow drivers. They may not require safety aids as their issues are typically parking. Not being able to negotiate tricky traffic situations. Getting scraped during turning or swapping lanes.

And the experts: Intercity runs, rushing to catch a train, anyplace where speed and dexterity is a must. These guys/ladies need all the safety kit they can kit. Accidents are mostly due to overconfidence.

And on the whole gender thingy: My wife will roll her eyes if i get her a 10 lakh rupee car that is loaded. But a house, Jewel, a holiday etc she wouldnt mind whatever the price tag is. I just need something to move around would be her argument. But when I pick up a big car, it is understood that it is for long trips with the family. And she would say; yeah he loves cars. Let him treat himself to a good one. Anyway we need something for the long trips. It is all down to priorities and mostly both car decisions are the wife's or at least based on the wife's approval.


Mod Note: Please avoid dotty posts like.... this....

[vb-saan]

Originally Posted by hybridpetrol

I somehow feel that this topic of this thread is diverted to different angles, from safety, economics, to male chauvinism.

Originally Posted by civic-sense

That is only part of the answer. In India, we do not treat women's luxuries/necessities equal to men's. Not just car, they even get cheaper smartphones, often what the husband used before he upgraded. We have progressed a lot from the times when they were left to eat after (leftovers of) their husbands, but they are still made to stay a step behind.

Thanks, this is one big point which I wanted to bring home with this thread. Why should men have all the fun?

Originally Posted by Eddy

Umm, what is the answer we are looking for in this thread ? Is the answer not obvious ?

Originally Posted by nakul0888

Yeah the answer to the titular question is obvious. The novice should be in a safer car. The thread however has deviated badly in several directions to ABS and social stuff. I am feeling awkward for being a part of it.

It's all op's fault he should have just stuck to the core question.

The answer is pretty obvious, and the purpose of this thread was not have a safety discussion (or how ABS helps), but to evoke the thought-process to acknowledge the obvious (even if it's in a small way).

Originally Posted by Rajeevraj

The other factor is what the other party is comfortable with. For example my wife is not very comfortable driving our vento. Not because she has issues with the size of it. It is just that because it is an expensive car and a Volkswagen ( whose maintenance is on the expensive side), she is more worried about getting bumps or scratches on it.
...
...
So to an external person, it would seem that - Ok this guy is driving the vento which is a solidly built car with abs, airbags, hill assist, esp and his wife is driving a nano with absolutely no safety features and a questionable build quality. Does not make me look very good.

That's the point Rajeev - being comfortable. Comfort comes from exposure; she won't know the good virtues of the Vento unless she gets to experience it. My wife used to believe that only a simple Nokia will work for her, but it all changed after I persuaded her to use an iPhone 3GS. Moving along with various generations of iPhone is an ongoing expense now, but atleast she is quite up-to-date in that scene. If you get her use your Vento TSI for a couple of days, you may soon end up driving the Nano

Originally Posted by Sutripta

How about this: S/He who spends more hours behind the wheel should get the safer car.

Great point there! Thank you.

[msk016]

Having a nice car is a relative notion. It would vary from person to person. On the other hand, I seriously believe that it is about time for our country to decide and implement a minimum standard of safety. The term "safe car" should not be left to anyone's judgement. I still don't understand why is it still possible in india to even sell a car without certain basic safety requirements. Expert or novice, everyone should be driving atleast a safe car, or any other vehicle for that matter. The basic problem in my humble openion is that our safety standards are too vague. Same standards do not apply to cars, autos, three wheeler transport vehicles, heavy vehicles, etc. We can have all the nice roads that we want, but if the people and the vehicles on these roads are not safe in every manner, we will continue to loose a huge number of our countrymen in road accidents. I am a marine engineer by profession and am presently sailing as a chief engineer on container ships. Out here safety is not ambiguous, it is absolute. I only hope that our government and the car makers start taking our safety seriously.
MSK.

[jetti]

I personally don't think safety features are optional. For 2 wheelers, the analogy will be that a helmet will protect the head of a novice and an expert equally.
Though an expert may be in control of their own vehicle, there are too many elements outside their control on the road.

[wantarangerover]

Ok, interesting thread, though I think many of us veered off in different directions with this one.

So the scenario is that we buy a great primary car for ourselves, and a little hatch for the spouse/dependents. The reasons are simple:

1. We just dont have enough money, to buy two big, safe, upmarket cars. So the spouse often is stuck with a spark / nano / alto.

2. The spouse often would be a novice driver and the Indian mentality is that "Let's buy a cheap car to learn driving properly first". We think that even if it gets a few dents, it ok, it is a cheap car anyway.

3. The spouse needs a small car, easy to drive, park etc., and is intimidated by driving an expensive car- what if I dent it? It would cost a bomb!

4. The spouse was making do with a scooty / activa and we think it is not safe - so obviously anything that has four wheels will do.

None of these are ideal, but it is the reality. Now, if we see legislation for minimum safety equipment, this scenario will solve itself.

[VW2010]

No matter how safe the car is if the driver is going to be unsafe, unstable and not following the rules set the driver is going to impact himself or someone else.

Its more important to invest on proper training, evasive maneuvering, managing emergency and most importantly how to passively avoid a situation.

Everyone needs a safe car and more so every car needs a safer driver.