[Swapnil4585]

Originally Posted by ram_hyundai

When did we start seeing ABS in vehicles. Did any court of law or any govt press the manufacturers for this? No way, so all manufacturers know what to do in which economy. First let our economy improve and then lets start demanding. In my opinion we wont require to demand, it would automatically come in.

Well, had the manufacturers been offering ABS and Airbags in their EURO NCAP certified base variants instead of power windows and velvet padded cupholders since the times our car market was infant, we would have brought them. Now our minds are set to buy cozy interior ed cars instead of safe cars. It would be interesting to see if the sales of Etios in a EURO NCAP 5 star rated body with the same bland interiors hits the roof top.

I am fully against the decision court has taken here and more over something smelly maybe there underlying this decision, i believe.

Who would benefit what if everything under 1.5 tonnes is prohibited from being sold?

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Sorry you are wrong here. Please don't interpret how Indian judiciary works based on some US/UK based articles.
Please refer to Justice Katju's comments in the attached article.

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/judic...-on-con-528298

Indian law is based on the British legal system, and precedents are a reality in Indian law also.

Justice Katju is wrong here, simply because the Indian judiciary does create laws, whenever they are confronted with a case that is not covered in the existing laws, and these laws are then treated as precedents. Precedents are quoted by all lawyers to bolster their case.

Here are some historic cases where the judiciary made laws. I'm sure this will sort out your confusion that the Indian judiciary can make laws. Some of these laws resulted in amending the constitution of India as well. Please read.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/3.../1/181044.html

This judge (who you allege was playing God here) was only hearing a PIL filed in his court, and passed an order asking the Central government to ensure that only vehicles which have been crash tested and tested for emissions will be allowed to be sold.

I think that he was well within his rights as a judge to pass judgement on a matter that was raised in his court. The order is also very well reasoned. I understand that you might have a difference of opinion, but you cannot allege that he was playing God, he was merely doing his duty of passing a judgement in a matter before him.

[kaushik_s]

I am seriously surprised to see some of the reactions here. Are we really at Team-BHP here, a place is which prides itself for promoting safe driving? Few members comparing the judge to be playing God when the bench only did what should've been done by the law-makers long time back. And also claiming that people here want Gizmos etc instead of safety features? Seriously? Someone even said that safer cars are not needed as they are not going to help during an accident as there are other reasons for accidents to happen. Ofcourse there are different reasons but that's why you also need those seatbelts and airbags etc. So that if the unthinkable happens, you can be relatively safer. Who knows you might come out unscathed because of seatbelt and airbag instead of being hospitalized or even worse. That's what safety standards are for. But many people seems to think that they are just some nuisance/hindrance while driving. People also think that it's stupidity when someone else asks them to follow the safety precautions or a High Court bench asks the Govt to make stricter rules to follow/enhance safety norms. If this is what even educated members of Team-BHP think then I am thankful for rulings like this one.

[apachelongbow]

typical knee jerk reactions by some of our members here. Firstly no one is questioning if safety features are needed. Question is on who is the right body to mandate safety features? Is it the elected government? or is it some high court judge sitting in one state of the country?
And passing judgement instructing the elected government based on a PIL seems very wrong to me. What prevents someone in future from filing frivolous PIL? or some vested interests filing PIL for their benefits?
Ideally the high court must have directed the government to formulate crash and safety standards within a particular time period, not passed a blanket ban on all vehicles below 1.5 tonnes. By definition a precedent cannot formulate a law or a ban.

[shivasuma]

Maybe this has been brought up in the thread before. But, why is a car/SUV/MUV weighing greater than 1500 kgs safer than one below it? Another aspect of this is, what if a car weighs 1499Kgs? Is it less safer than another which weighs 1500? I completely agree with the court's ruling that only vehicles that have passed safety norms (though I don't think India has one) should be allowed. But basing it on how much it weighs is ridiculous.

[aaggoswami]

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

Ofcourse there are different reasons but that's why you also need those seatbelts and airbags etc. So that if the unthinkable happens, you can be relatively safer. Who knows you might come out unscathed because of seatbelt and airbag instead of being hospitalized or even worse. That's what safety standards are for.

There a few things I would like put forward.
First is motoring sense and second is quality of automobiles made available to us Indians.
I will leave the topic of motoring sense as it off-topic for this thread.
That brings us back to quality of automobiles for which the ban was issued.

Did Court give any further direction on evaluation of cars, irrespective of weight ?
What is current available safety rating for all cars above 1500 kg ? Any particular direction given by Court to ARAI for this ? How could the court ascertain that a car with 1500 kg and above is much safer over 12XX kg modern crossover ?
What about emission norms for cars with weight over 1500 kg ? Any reasonable data shared by Court or directive given for the same ?

The list of questions will go on and on. Reality is that there is a leap in technological advancement which either the court deliberately ignored or they are not aware of.

Another factor is EU quality. We should have basic EU quality w.r.t to body shells, but expecting six airbags as standard would be too much in a nation where even one is not standard. Swift for exports is built on a different line than Swift for domestic market. Most of this is discussed at length in other thread. Yes, if court had directed the car makers to instantly start selling cars with build similar to EU offerings, that would have been much positive point where there is direction and effort to help safety concerns. But a ban ? That too based on weight ?

Why I believe the courts lack sincerity ? Did the Court offer any directive for HCV's not having under-run protection bars ? Ideally there should be one directive to have them installed on all HCV's plying in state of Assam, applicable to HCV's entering Assam too ( like the yellow sticker on lights in Gujarat state ).
And for the HCV's that came with under-run protection bars but later on removed ? Cant the court ban such vehicles ? Dont the court think that these HCV's do cost human lives ? Did the court ban use of Bull Bars ?

Directive for evaluation and providing quality should be given priority than a Ban.

EDIT : I read the whole judgement again. They have not discussed side impact. For impact safety they have mentioned as "otherwise known as frontal impact".
The directive mentions cars should be tested for safety and emissions. Any car sold in India goes under the process of homogolation at ARAI and all cars currently on sale in India must be approved by ARAI. Why this ban then ?

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

typical knee jerk reactions by some of our members here. Firstly no one is questioning if safety features are needed. Question is on who is the right body to mandate safety features? Is it the elected government? or is it some high court judge sitting in one state of the country?
And passing judgement instructing the elected government based on a PIL seems very wrong to me. What prevents someone in future from filing frivolous PIL? or some vested interests filing PIL for their benefits?
Ideally the high court must have directed the government to formulate crash and safety standards within a particular time period, not passed a blanket ban on all vehicles below 1.5 tonnes. By definition a precedent cannot formulate a law or a ban.

You seem to be misinformed. A frivolous PIL would be dismissed, (sometimes with costs). The judge is supposed to be a learned man, and the advocates on both sides are supposed to make their points. So, its only after both sides have had their say that a judge, any judge would take a decision.

Again, there is no blanket ban, it is a directive to the central government to ensure that only cars that have been tested for crash worthiness and emissions are allowed to be sold. Please atleast read the judgement before making wild comments like the judge is behaving like God, and that the indian judiciary cannot make laws.

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

You seem to be misinformed. A frivolous PIL would be dismissed, (sometimes with costs). The judge is supposed to be a learned man, and the advocates on both sides are supposed to make their points. So, its only after both sides have had their say that a judge, any judge would take a decision.

Again, there is no blanket ban, it is a directive to the central government to ensure that only cars that have been tested for crash worthiness and emissions are allowed to be sold. Please atleast read the judgement before making wild comments like the judge is behaving like God, and that the indian judiciary cannot make laws.

Thank you for your assumption about my reading of the judgement. The directive implies that the government and its associated agencies don't test new cars/models for emissions or for crash worthiness before allowing them on roads? If the judge is indeed a learned man, he would have known about the registration process.
The irony is when there are millions of serious cases being left hanging by our esteemed judiciary, they are pro active in passing directives and judgement on such cases or the one like sun films.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Thank you for your assumption about my reading of the judgement. The directive implies that the government and its associated agencies don't test new cars/models for emissions or for crash worthiness before allowing them on roads? If the judge is indeed a learned man, he would have known about the registration process.
The irony is when there are millions of serious cases being left hanging by our esteemed judiciary, they are pro active in passing directives and judgement on such cases or the one like sun films.

My assumption that you had not read the judgement was based on your comments in the matter. If you have indeed read the judgement, then I would question your understanding of the matter, again considering your previous comments in the matter.

Even now, your query is: Why did this judge issue this proactive directive and judgement in this case when there are millions of serious cases pending before the judiciary?

The answer is very simple, because the PIL came up for hearing in his court and he had to decide it one way or another. Based on the laws, he had no choice but to pass this verdict.

I quote:"It is argued that all small 4 wheeler passenger vehicles on the road have not passed the frontal impact tests as required under the law, and they have been freely sold without conforming to the requisite standard of safety. In this regard the counsel also referred to the provisions of section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, where the law mandates that rules and regulations have to be made with regard to the safety standards of vehicles, whereas the Central government instead of formulating rules has issued standing orders prescribing the safety standards which is impermissible in law"

Now, if you read the paragraph mentioned above, you will see that he has only enforced the laws as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. He was not playing God, nor was he making laws, nor was he being proactive when millions of serious cases were pending before the judiciary.

[Asish_VK]

I Can’t understand.

Why there is so much criticism against this law ? Especially in Team-Bhp.
I think as Bhpians, we support safety more than anything for cars.

If a state bans cars that don't pass the crash test, that should be treated as a welcome move and should be appreciated. After all the government is doing it for the safety of people.

Some said even the car pass the crash test, there are many ways a car occupant can die in Indian roads. To me, that comment seems really childish . It’s like saying even if you don’t, smoke you may get cancer : then why not smoke

If those safety measure can avoid at least some % of fatal injuries, its worth doing it.

I don’t want to go deeply into the rule, I am not interested at all in the legal side of it, whether the judge or judiciary is doing good or bad, but as a common man, I fully support the rule. I hope the rule for crash test should be there in whole of India soon. At least the cars sold in India future will be of good quality in terms of safety.


Asish

[renegade004]

The Suzuki Swift sold in Europe (manufactured in Hungary) scored 5/5 stars for safety in the same crash test in which the Swift sold in India scored 0/5. The Swift sold in India was found lacking in 'structural integrity', i.e., the structure of the car disintegrated in a collision which the structure of the Swift sold in Europe was able to withstand.

This means that even if we put safety features such as airbags and ABS aside, Suzuki are selling a version of the Swift in India which has a structure that is far weaker than the structure of the Swift they are selling in Europe (Perhaps they use less metal in the Indian version.). A structurally unstable car isn't safe even with airbags, as many readers would know, because it falls apart on collision.

Why the short shrift to the Indian market? Is it simply because they can get away with it since there are not enough regulations regarding safety here?

I would have asked whether it is also because the consumers are ignorant, but reading some of the comments against the honourable court's order here makes me think that some of us don't care about safety as long as the price is right.

Meanwhile, it's not as if all manufacturers don't care. Volkswagen are selling the same Polo in India that they sell internationally, with all the safety features included. The Polo was found structurally stable in the NCAP crash tests and Volkswagen have since then also begun to offer airbags as standard fitments in even the base versions of all cars they sell in India.

[civic-sense]

I am against courts making arbitrary laws. I think it is the job of the elected ones to legislate.

More than that, I believe in teh right of companies to build cars they deem fit to their business...

and the right of individuals to buy ones they deem fit for them.

Having said that, I am not-so-secretly happy about the judgement. Maybe in the future, I'd get to choose from a wider range of safe cars.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

I am against courts making arbitrary laws. I think it is the job of the elected ones to legislate.

Why do you say that the court is making arbitary laws? If you read the judgement, the court is basically upholding the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, not really making any new law. Have you read the judgement yourself?

More than that, I believe in the right of companies to build cars they deem fit to their business...

and the right of individuals to buy ones they deem fit for them.

Making structurally unsafe vehicles for the Indian market and not disclosing the results of crash tests that have already been conducted takes away ethical behaviour and transparency from the equation. I do not have the freedom to make an informed choice if I cannot find out the crash test results of competing cars.

[civic-sense]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

Why do you say that the court is making arbitary laws? If you read the judgement, the court is basically upholding the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, not really making any new law. Have you read the judgement yourself?

No, I haven't read the judgement, but then since you have said here that they were just upholding the MV act, I hereby assume that the MV act or 1988 prohibits sale of unsafe vehicles.

Making structurally unsafe vehicles for the Indian market and not disclosing the results of crash tests that have already been conducted takes away ethical behaviour and transparency from the equation. I do not have the freedom to make an informed choice if I cannot find out the crash test results of competing cars.

Informed choice - I agree. An I do agree that not much data is there at our disposal. But I wouldn't believe that even with adequate data, people would have made a different choice. The sales numbers are tilted exceedingly in favour of unsafe vehicles (I wouldn't name them and risk another debate here), and I wouldn't believe that people bought them assuming they were safe. Recently Global NCAP published crash results on a few popular cars, and I don't see that the sales of those vehicles have been affected one bit. So much for informed decisions.

[Swapnil4585]

I'm still amused to see some views, criticizing the Court Order. As far as the anomalies in the Order with respect to categorizing of vehicles below and above 1,500 kilograms, is a subject matter of another debate. That would require us to have a look into the text of the Public Interest Litigation and the substantiates brought up before the consideration of the Hon Court.

It was (it is) the duty of the legislation to draft a law mandating manufacturers to produce safe cars, and since it has failed in doing its duty, the Court used the writ of mandamus and directed the Government to not to do something. What should be highlighted from this solely and essentially is, the inaction of law makers.