[civic-sense]

Depends on how important "travel" is in a person's life. We often tend to define "destination" and "journey" as separate things. Journey is a distraction, from normal life. For example, some people treat their living room and their bathroom differently. They would have expansive living rooms while they would have claustrophobia-inducing/spartan/utilitarian bathrooms. For them, living room is for living and bathroom is only a distraction.

Similarly, for some, home/office/shopping/holidays constitute living while commute is a distraction. They choose the least expensive means to commute. And shorter the commute, the least luxuries they seek. A lift/elevator is probably the shortest commute we take up during our lives. Since it is short we would be ready to put up with a crowded elevator with no ventilation and interiors that is strictly utilitarian.

Coming to cars, people treat travel/commute as a distraction from normal life, so are ready to spend only meager amounts on that. Here at my workplace we have VPs who drives Altos and Santros. I have talked to a senior manager who drives an Alto, but lives in an expensive high-rise. His reasoning is, "You have to get from home to office and back, why do you need an expensive car".

In short people who consider the journey as important ans the destination would be particular about the cars they drive while others don't.

[hybridpetrol]

Originally Posted by Vigkey

If my understanding is correct, it is triggered when the wheels lock or the car skids.

ABS would in my opinion will pitch in, only when the braking is sudden, resulting in the car coming to a complete halt. Such sudden brakes (without ABS) would result in wheels stopping rotation, while the momentum of the vehicle is still there, resulting in the vehicle still moving in the same direction, with the wheels "locked".
ABS would manage the braking in such a manner that the wheel rotation is managed in such a way that it is in sync with the reduction of vehicle momentum. This is the same as manually applying the brakes multiple times, resulting in the vehicle stopping for a moment and moving (results in jerking). However, since this is done automatically and controlled electronically, it is done fast, before anyone realizes and the car comes to a complete halt without the wheels getting locked.
I believe this has nothing to do with slippery conditions. There is still a possibility of wheels losing traction with the surface due to aquaplaning. While ABS would do its bit during hard braking, if the surface is not conducive (as in rain), the vehicle might still lose control in slippery conditions.

[Vigkey]

Originally Posted by kozhissery

ABS does not get activated in low speed. Anyway that what my Swift's User manual says

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

Originally Posted by hybridpetrol

ABS would in my opinion will pitch in, only when the braking is sudden, resulting in the car coming to a complete halt. Such sudden brakes (without ABS) would result in wheels stopping rotation, while the momentum of the vehicle is still there, resulting in the vehicle still moving in the same direction, with the wheels "locked".

I believe this has nothing to do with slippery conditions. There is still a possibility of wheels losing traction with the surface due to aquaplaning. While ABS would do its bit during hard braking, if the surface is not conducive (as in rain), the vehicle might still lose control in slippery conditions.

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.

[vb-saan]

We do have a few threads running on the safety features offered on Indian cars. The question here is not essentially on the safety features offered, more on the thought process of choosing a car for wife, dad or mom. In my opinion, bigger cars are difficult to manage is a thing of the past. A Vento or an Ecosport is as easy to manage (drive/park) as a Brio or a Swift.

Originally Posted by nakul0888

Here if the husband buys a Vento for himself and a swift for his wife, maybe it's because that's what his budget permits. You can't expect him to sacrifice other important things like bank loans just so that his wife can drive safely in a top end terrano.

Good points there, but in example you mentioned, why not the husband choose the Swift and let his wife drive the Vento?

Originally Posted by lamborghini

Interestingly, I believe ACI or some automobile magazine had done some research a few years ago. The CR-V is the vehicle that most women desired as their daily drives, though an Alto was the next runner up IIRC.

Yes, that sounds more logical

[execve]

Originally Posted by vb-san

Good points there, but in example you mentioned, why not the husband choose the Swift and let his wife drive the Vento?

I believe the answer is in this excellent summary statement earlier by civic-sense

Originally Posted by civic-sense

In short people who consider the journey as important ans the destination would be particular about the cars they drive while others don't.

[Santoshbhat]

Originally Posted by vb-san

Good points there, but in example you mentioned, why not the husband choose the Swift and let his wife drive the Vento?

Generally I find women averse to driving bigger cars. Here in Bangalore at least, it much easier to navigate an i10 or a wagonR than say a Jetta or a Duster. More than driving, its parking that scares the shit out of novice drivers. Long cars need a larger turning radius and more precision while parking in tight spaces, whereas in a small hatch you can get away with small mistakes.

Safety comes at a price and the question ultimately boils down to how much you are ready to pay. If the car is going to be driven primarily in the crowded city streets, then I don't think there's any harm in letting go of safety features like airbags and ABS. How many of us refuse to ride in Autorikshaws because they're unsafe? For short distances you just can't beat the convenience and economy of a rik, but when the travelling distance is more , we may reconsider and pay a little extra for the safety and comfort of a cab. On similar lines the second car in many homes does not get a priority for safety features as its a city runabout and chances of these features coming into play are slim.

[hybridpetrol]

Originally Posted by Vigkey

I think this is where other features like ESP and TC comes into picture.

I think even the ESP, EBD and TCS will be of no use in slippery surfaces. All of these technologies adjust the braking to ensure the vehicle does not lose control for various reasons, such as under steering / over steering, uneven surfaces etc.
All these assume that the car is on a surface where the wheels can roll properly. When the car is skidding on a water surface, braking will not bring back the vehicle back to control.
I am not sure whether there is any other technology to prevent such aquaplaning or gain back control. Experts can throw more light on this

[civic-sense]

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

Generally I find women averse to driving bigger cars.

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.

[SmartCat]

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.

Unfair accusation. Indians (men & women) spend money on where they see "VALUE".

Women tend to spend money on Gold & Diamond Jewellery, clothes and shoes. Why do you think we have all those Whatsapp & Facebook jokes on ladies' spending habits?

Us men tend to spend money on cars & gadgets.

Of course, the above is a generalized statement based on personal experiences and looking at spending habits of friends/relatives. Individual experiences might vary!

[VeluM]

Originally Posted by vb-san

Some common requirements in a what-car thread - for the self-driven:
...
[*]We all love our family, so why an inferior option for the immediate family member (spouse / parents). Shouldn't the so-called lesser expert driver need a safer car? Why should your wife/dad drive a Wagon R and not an Ecosport?[/list]

• In the developed markets, 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?

Brilliant thread! I recently read about a BHPian who had bought a higher end vehicle for themselves with very stringent requirements, while the wife got a bare basic (not exaggerating) car. Both got hatches, mind, but the budget for the husband's car more than double that for the wife's car.

When reading about this, I felt the same as you did. When both these cars would be driven almost exclusively in the city, then why the extraordinary bias?

Originally Posted by kozhissery

ABS does not get activated in low speed. Anyway that what my Swift's User manual says Attachment 1404937

I feel the vehicle should have structural stability and Airbags (vehicle that's going to be used inside city). Most of the accidents inside city are of minor and not Fatal, mostly structural damages (unless banged with Tipper).

ABS is useful at any speed above that mentioned, especially with the 9th gen which accounts for gravel, sand (and snow though not relevant for most of India).

Originally Posted by smartcat

In almost all households, the second car is driven within city limits.

Death or severe injuries in car accidents are extremely rare within city limits, because of low speeds. ABS never activates at slow speeds. Airbags too won't pop out in low speed impact. That's probably why I don't feel unsafe when driving my dad's Santro or my FIL's Vista base model - within the city.

Airport runs might involve comparatively higher speeds, but I guess people take the big safe car with large boot on airport duties.

What low speeds are you referring to? I'm sure you do drive above 6kmph within the city. Also remember that even 30kmph within the city in a head-on with another vehicle travelling at 30kmph will still be a 60kmph impact. Quite severe, and sufficient for airbags to deploy.

ABS is about avoiding accidents, while airbags are to help survive them. I agree though that structural integrity and airbags should be mandatory, but disagree that ABS is not required in the city. In which city in India does one NOT see vehicles being driven at 80, 90 or even 100? Outer Ring Road and Intermediate Ring Road for Bangalore folk?

Originally Posted by Vigkey

Well, by low speeds, I meant city driving speeds i.e. speeds in 20-30 kmph....

Hope I am clear with the point now

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

Generally I find women averse to driving bigger cars.

Well that's probably because they don't get a chance or are not given the confidence to drive a larger vehicle. My wife drives our Rapid everywhere in the city, while I prefer the scooter because it is far more convenient getting around in traffic.

Originally Posted by hybridpetrol

I think even the ESP, EBD and TCS will be of no use in slippery surfaces. All of these technologies adjust the braking to ensure the vehicle does not lose control for various reasons, such as under steering / over steering, uneven surfaces etc.
All these assume that the car is on a surface where the wheels can roll properly. When the car is skidding on a water surface, braking will not bring back the vehicle back to control.
I am not sure whether there is any other technology to prevent such aquaplaning or gain back control. Experts can throw more light on this

Not sure how this is relevant to the thread.

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.

Well said!

There are some exceptions, especially when it isn't ones' own money at stake. For example when my parents were planning on buying a car, I suggested the Polo TSI. My parents bought the Vento Comfortline diesel because it cost less at that time after discounts - bigger car, diesel. If I had a controlling stake in what has to be bought, they would have the Polo TSI instead.

I like this thread because it raises some questions that a lot of us will find either difficult to answer because many do the same. In my extended family a relative drives his i20 Sports which was purchased recently, while the wife has been handed down a decade old Zen Lxi. That's an upgrade for her, because she previously drove an Indica diesel sans power steering and only AC (no heater)!! This is in Delhi traffic, if you can imagine that.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by VeluM

What low speeds are you referring to? I'm sure you do drive above 6kmph within the city. Also remember that even 30kmph within the city in a head-on with another vehicle travelling at 30kmph will still be a 60kmph impact. Quite severe, and sufficient for airbags to deploy.

That's a myth. When it comes to car crash math, 30 Kmph + 30 Kmph = 30 Kmph.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4

ABS is about avoiding accidents, while airbags are to help survive them. I agree though that structural integrity and airbags should be mandatory, but disagree that ABS is not required in the city. In which city in India does one NOT see vehicles being driven at 80, 90 or even 100? Outer Ring Road and Intermediate Ring Road for Bangalore folk?

Again, cruising at 80 kmph (above speed limit, by the way) does not mean you will crash at 80 kmph - unless the driver is drunk. Think about it and you will get the answer why.

But if anybody intends to drive at 80 - 100 kmph within the city limits, they do need all the safety equipment that a car can offer.

[VeluM]

Originally Posted by smartcat

That's a myth. When it comes to car crash math, 30 Kmph + 30 Kmph = 30 Kmph.

Interesting, and thanks for that update. It makes sense when explained

Originally Posted by smartcat

Again, cruising at 80 kmph (above speed limit, by the way) does not mean you will crash at 80 kmph - unless the driver is drunk. Think about it and you will get the answer why.

But if anybody intends to drive at 80 - 100 kmph within the city limits, they do need all the safety equipment that a car can offer.

I never said that one has to be cruising at 80 within the city. I don't, but frequently see others that do. The speed limit on the Intermediate and outer ring roads in BLR is 60, I don't even do 50 on the Intermediate because of traffic, but there are still others who do well over the limit.

There have been accidents within Bangalore city where a vehicle at speed has jumped the median and rammed an oncoming vehicle, resulting in death or severe damage. Are we really going to argue that "it is unlikely to happen to my wife because she drives really slowly, and hence can do without the safety?"

Even if we do ignore the safety bit, what about the features that come as standard with a 10L car as compared to a car that costs under 5? Would the other family members not like climate control? How about steering mounted controls - is it Ok for them to take their eyes off the road to change the FM station or volume within the city because even if they do crash as a result, they'll be just fine?

Let me just clarify that I am not arguing specifics with anybody. It is not a matter of whether anyone will be injured or not. It is an attitude that is difficult to understand for some, and inherent in some others. I just happen belong to the former category.

[Bhodrolok]

I don't agree. Even in City driving we regularly drive at speeds close to 60 km/hr which is more than capable of life threatening accidents. In case of sudden braking ABS is activated even in city speeds & airbags do deploy in case of a frontal collision even at a speed of 40 km/hr.
Ideally every one should have the safest car they can afford, if one does think that women should be driving cheap and flimsy cars since they are not driving as much, it's a problem of perception. Also I have an issue with the premise that the male of the family is the expert and the woman is somehow the novice.

Originally Posted by smartcat

Death or severe injuries in car accidents are extremely rare within city limits, because of low speeds. ABS never activates at slow speeds. Airbags too won't pop out in low speed impact.

[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.
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.

[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.

Today if we want to get a 2nd car, she wants the nano amt and if I want to ensure regular usage and also ensures she feels comfortable driving around, the nano amt is the car I would need to get. I personally would not want to get a car without basic safety features, but no point spending several lakhs and get a car that will not get used as it should be.

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.