Hyundai i10 given 1-star adult safety rating by ASEAN NCAP

[blackasta]

Originally Posted by zavegur

Isn't this the mentality of regular car buyers? I hope enough safety education is imparted in the general public so everyone is aware of the absolute necessity of safety features.

And agonizingly, most senior/elderly people have a lax approach towards safety. Example being my dad who refused to buy a ABS/Airbag equipped car in 2013 (he bought a Eon Dlite+) . I can barely get him to put on seatbelts. My mom even refuses that.
Perhaps due to the fact that most of their lifetime they have driven/rode cars without these safety measures, they think these are superfluous.

[AKTRACK]

When I was planning to buy a car and specifically insisted on Twin Airbags, one Maruti Dealer's first question was - Sir do you drive a lot on highways. I said no, most of the driving will happen in the city. He said then you do not need airbags. In a city like Delhi, one barely manages to touch 60 KMPH, was his logic. Technically, he was right. But I did not want to leave anything on chance and went for Aspire.

One BIG BIG reason for us not being safety conscious is India being a very religious country, rather than on science, we leave a lot on God.

[thehighwayman]

I think the only way these car companies will wake up and take notice is by collectively shaming them on public/social forums.Let these companies be known that a human life is equally valuable whether its in US , EU or India.

[swiftnfurious]

I think we are blaming the old folks / un-educated people more than they deserve. Look around and even the "educated" corporate citizens who do not bother to wear seatbelts or even buy the top variants in the name of "budget".

I think it's time the government give some subsidies to those cars which scores 4 / 5 stars and levy a penalty / sales cap for the models which get lower than 4 stars. I believe a lot will change once the crash facility is operational. But what the government should do is not to delay the commencement of the operations of the facility.

[GTO]

Not that I'm saying a light build means danger and the recent Etios news has certainly proven that. But this feather-light build is surely a contributor to the i10's poor safety. From our official review:

Originally Posted by Stratos

On the flip side, open the door and the first thing that strikes you is that the i10 is very light. At 860 kgs, the i10 is amongst the lightest hatchbacks from this segment. The Maruti Ritz, a direct competitor, is a full 145 kilos heavier!

Originally Posted by blackasta

And agonizingly, most senior/elderly people have a lax approach towards safety. Example being my dad who refused to buy a ABS/Airbag equipped car in 2013 (he bought a Eon Dlite+) . I can barely get him to put on seatbelts. My mom even refuses that.

Just tell them an incident or two of people they are familiar with. Jaspal Bhatti died on the back seat of his Honda Accord because his head smashed against the front seatback. He wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Also show them pics of Hema Malini's injuries after her recent accident in an S-Class. She wasn't wearing a seatbelt on the backseat either. These two incidents are enough to drive the message home.

Originally Posted by AKTRACK

One BIG BIG reason for us not being safety conscious is India being a very religious country, rather than on science, we leave a lot on God.

True to an extent. Indians largely don't care about safety. How many houses do you know with a fire extinguisher? How many two-wheeler riders do you see everyday without helmets? So many cars running on our roads without insurance!

[Mithrandir]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Given talking about using 'protection' is a taboo subject in India, the govt. has come up with this novel method of population control via bad automotive engineering.

If the road accident stats are anything to go by, the scheme is a runaway success.

+1 to that. A few right initiatives by the government can go a long way in bringing down the casualty rate in accidents. I don't understand the reason why the governments hesitate to raise the bars in passenger safety. If they think it will scare the car manufacturers away then such a fear is needless. We are a fast growing economy. No car manufacturer can take the Indian market lightly. A year ago, there were reports in the news papers that the central government is going to make front airbags mandatory. Almost all car models released after that report invariably come with frontal airbags (some of them as a standard feature) and there is not much of an impact on price as well. It is possible for the car makers to make their cars safer and still keep the prices almost same. But, if the government doesn't make it mandatory, then the companies will not bother as less safety features means more profit margin for them.

On a lighter note, I would like to see one more change, while we are at it. At present, sub 4 meter cars attract lower taxes resulting in a plethora of sub 4 meter sedans (some of them look so bland ugly). If the government can increase this limit by 1/4 th of a meter then, may be, we can see some unoffending, proportionate designs in the entry level sedan segment.

[rattanw]

To my mind, its a simple question of demand and supply. What gets sold is what customer is comfortable accepting at a particular price point.

Major part of the entire problem about lack of safety features lies in customers not demanding those features. Older generation or rural consumers are both poor examples - they are not the only ones saying no to safety features, its the collective consumer segment as a whole that is responsible. Yes, there are individuals with higher safety perception due to growing awareness and exposure, yet that number is small, too small for either the auto manufacturing body or the Government to take any concrete steps.

Lets not blame the government or the auto makers here for a minute, and lets take a pragmatic look at the problem. Who would not like to see lesser accidents, lesser fatalities, and lesser damage to property. Certainly, government including, everyone will like to see changes which lead to these outcomes. However, the task of lawmakers is not easy, as public perception and support from industry is very important for more reasons than one. Government of any day or age, or of any country would not like to make enemies at home.

Introduction of safety features in cars is a no brainer - its a must have. Yet, must have for whom? For the consumers and their families of course. But why would an average consumer suddenly become interested in not following the norm and doing something different (by choosing models with safety features only and by making safety features as the cornerstone of their judgement). Where's the incentive for that average consumer to go against the popular tide? Till such time that there is no incentive, who would want to change? Consumers can have herd mentality among other behavioral factors which leads to mass choices, choices which a logical, sane mind will reject but an influenced mind will accept.

To kickstart that change in behavior and choices, is to induce incentives. Incentives, like having lesser road tax on models with 4 airbags than model with no airbags, like making insurance companies provide mandatory additional riders to make insurance more expensive for models with no safety features (for example - hike the insurance rates so that base model i10 or Alto insurance premium is 10% more than models with airbags and ESR, ABS, etc). Incentives like offering 17 year validity of Registration as against 15 years for models with no safety features. Incentives like offering VIP registration numbers to vehicles with higher safety features (now that one is sure to lift the demand of models with better safety features in a city like Delhi).

The added advantage for Government is that there is no cost to the government, auto makers lobby wont be up in arms as the intention is to popularize sale of vehicle models with safety features and it doesnt require any major investment in terms of compliance to crash tests, setting up crash facilities, etc.

Once consumers find that auto-incentive to go for higher safety models, automakers will be forced to produce more and more of the 'safer' models and ultimately discontinue or reduce to a trickle the sales of models with no safety features.

The key is to provide incentives and create demand for a particular feature set rather than take the longish, winding road through regulations and infrastructure related changes which the government has planned. In this way, the 'real' results can be achieved in 2 years, lets say, over the current plan of endless waiting for real change to happen.

[Contrapunto]

Originally Posted by swiftnfurious

Probably OT for this thread, but

I think it's time the government give some subsidies to those cars which scores 4 / 5 stars and levy a penalty / sales cap for the models which get lower than 4 stars. I believe a lot will change once the crash facility is operational. But what the government should do is not to delay the commencement of the operations of the facility.

I think there should be two "graded" taxes

(1) On safety equipment- the safest get the lowest tax, and the variants/ models with low safety ratings, a higher tax. This may get some of the lower end trims in line (on-road price) with the higher end trims, and that should be fine. It will remove a perverse incentive to buy cheaper, by compromising safety.

(2) On emissions- viz. the dirtier the car in tailpipe emissions, the higher the tax. Again, some of the cheaper models may just become as expensive as higher end models, but again, I think its fair from the point of view of environmental, and social equity.

[karuvally]

I talk about the budget cars not being safe to my relatives and they are like something is seriously wrong with me. Indian cars wont get better safety until customers finally wake up to the issue at hand. To whomever I talked to, they felt safety was hardly an issue and believed driving safely was the only real solution!