[Nav-i-gator]

Ideally, the answer should be a no. But I voted yes. My reasons (and questions for those who voted no):

1. Do you always drive on a "rated" safe car?
2. Do all your family members, even those sitting in the back seat, always buckle up? Even in taxi?
3. Do you never take an Ola/Uber? (90% of those taxis are either unsafe, or in a condition that render them unsafe anyway).
4. Do you and your family members never take an Auto/Rickshaw/E-rickshaw, ever?
5. Do you refuse to sit in a car, driven by your relatives, friends, neighbors etc that are unsafe or without active/passive safety features?

I think there will be just a handful of us (or none) who can answer all these questions in NO - always, all the time, without exceptions.

[ron178]

Guys, I'm not sure why this thread is suddenly active again, but a friendly reminder that NCAP ratings are consumer ratings to help YOU choose safer.

This is no longer 2014 when the Government doesn't do crash tests in type approval. India has now applied the minimum UN (equivalent) crash test standards.

Beyond zero and one star, NCAP ratings cover disabling injury and non-critical body regions more than life-threatening injury. Then they become important as consumer information, but you shouldn't insult someone if they want to choose something lower rated in favour of something else they consider important, like electronics or seating capacity.

For example, if you crashed an S-Presso into another S-Presso, both travelling at ~55km/h and biased 50% towards the driver side (the type of test Global NCAP tries to simulate in the lab using the 64km/h 40% ODB test), you would have a negligible probability of even surviving.

If you did that with a Swift vs Swift you might also have a moderate risk of rib fracture along with the aforementioned ankle joint failure from pedal intrusion, but not very likely to be life-threatening.

If it was a Seltos vs Seltos, with that kind of a risk of tibia fracture and ankle joint failure (arising from catastrophic intrusion of the pedals, as well as rupture of the footwell which meant that the pedal intrusion was unstable (it could increase consdierably in a slightly worse case)) you'd have a very limited probability of ever being able to walk again, but you would probably survive.

If you did that with a Punch vs Punch you would likely be able to walk away.

At the risk of repeating myself, a higher star rating does not mean protection at higher speeds. It means better protection at the same speed.

Global NCAP zero and one star cars are caused by a special limiting applied when a critical body region would be non-recoverable after the test, depending on whether this was based on dummy readings or other relevant penalties. In both cases a critical body region will be painted red in the technical report and it relates to a high risk of life-threatening injury. That's why I would strongly discourage the purchase of new zero and one star cars even if they're legal and pass at 56 (you could get a safer used car, like a Polo, Etios or Jazz).

Generally you would stop seeing zero star cars when you applied the regulation but there's a small window between passing EEVC limits in the 56km/h government test but crossing the same limits in the 64km/h test (where they're known as capping limits, i.e. when NCAPs reduce the score to zero). Unfortunately Maruti Suzuki chose to exploit this window with the S-Presso.

[Mar21]

Voted Yes

I do have a beater car to use in the city, more so when i know i will be parking on the road.

The nicer car to be used for out station trips (not that frequent) and for when i know i will have proper parking at the destination.

The scratches and the dents are a pain. The act of getting them fixed is a bigger one. Driving around with a few scratches and a dimple on my shiny black steed.

That said, on different note - i'd love to own cars (and their fenders) that haven't been rated to drive around the city on a Sunday morning

https://www.yankodesign.com/2020/08/...his-cool-kart/

[Raghu M]

Whoever thinks poorly crash rated cars are safe within the city are wrong. I have seen people do 70 to 80 kmph on city roads (in pure daylight). So, if you think that Alto or Swift is going to keep you safe just because you are in the city, then you have to re-think. There are equal no. of dangers in the city as on highways. Of course, highways are way more dangerous for poorly crash rated cars. Just because you are a safe driver doesn't ensure safety on city roads. I would avoid a poor crash ratings car in the city as well. Not always do you get stuck in bumper to bumper traffic. It's better to weed out the ones that do not have any airbags. The newer models should have basic safety norms as standard.

[Rolling_Stock]

Voted YES on 2 conditions

a) I would buy an unrated (being ignorant) rather than poorly rated (being dumb)
b) If I chose one, would make sure that it is a top end version with all safety features

I feel most eligible for this question as I had owned a SWIFT and now a HARRIER.
I'm dumb and ignorant !!

However, City or Highway, my driving habits don't change.

Cheers !!

[Nissan1180]

My opinion is not backed by statistics perhaps, but I find any car to be better and safer than the alternative-using public transport. A Nano or Alto or old 800 provides more security than a motorbike, auto or an overcrowded bus. Crash test criteria are important, but these must be seen in the perspective that includes the alternatives.

[H_Dogg72]

Never. I don’t travel in unsafe cars period.
One less risk to cut from my life.
I have two unsafe cars in my factory,they are both maruti eeco’s. I do not even go 500m in those vehicles and take out my car instead.
You just don’t know when someone rear ends you or something and poof you are dead. Have seen many such instances on the accident thread.
“City Use” is no justification for an unsafe car and does not magically make it a safe car.
If you choose to use an unsafe car, you should understand the risk vs reward and make your choice

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

Ideally, the answer should be a no. But I voted yes. My reasons (and questions for those who voted no):

1. Do you always drive on a "rated" safe car?
Yep.
2. Do all your family members, even those sitting in the back seat, always buckle up? Even in taxi?
No, but they sure do if I am in the vehicle. I don’t move otherwise.Don’t want a projectile hurling at me.
3. Do you never take an Ola/Uber? (90% of those taxis are either unsafe, or in a condition that render them unsafe anyway).
I book the premier or suv option and get good cars with rear seatbelts.
4. Do you and your family members never take an Auto/Rickshaw/E-rickshaw, ever?
I don’t, and can’t force anyone else to do the same.
5. Do you refuse to sit in a car, driven by your relatives, friends, neighbors etc that are unsafe or without active/passive safety features?
They all own safer cars than I do! Haha

I think there will be just a handful of us (or none) who can answer all these questions in NO - always, all the time, without exceptions.

All responses in bold. Risk Minimization NOT Risk Elimination

[HrB]

Voted Yes.

It's a no brainer for me. I live in Guwahati and maximum speed we normally can drive is 40 kmph. If I take a bicycle to my office, chances are I'll need less time compared to when I take my car. At this speed, all cars are safe.

Of course, I'll be totally against the same car if I have to hit the highway.

[jalex77]

Voted No, I would buy one if that's the option that suits me best and will surely use it anywhere it's allowed and capable of plying on, be it an express highway or a village mud road.
Safety ratings when done by government agencies, IIHS or EuroNCAP I'll consider seriously. Personally, I do not buy this overrated so called GNCAP ratings as the gospel on safety anyways.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by jalex77

Safety ratings when done by government agencies, IIHS or EuroNCAP

Really? Both are independent nonprofits, despite what a couple of very poorly informed influencers might try to tell you.


And as long as you're referencing the IIHS, you might want to carefully read their old but still painfully relevant article specifically showing, with examples, why Global NCAP's work is so important (Safety gains aren't global: Some regions lag).

And in case you miss it:

IIHS and NHTSA are Global NCAP members, along with ASEAN NCAP, the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP), China New Car Assessment Program (C-NCAP), the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), Japan New Car Assessment Program (JNCAP), Korean New Car Assessment Program and Latin NCAP.

Yes, some European governments fund Euro NCAP because of its benefits in accelerating legislation through consumer ratings, and because of their collaborative efforts in the EEVC (the research body that developed Euro NCAP's first consumer tests as well as the UN's minimum crash test regulations). But Euro NCAP's major sponsors are still consumer protection organisations, insurance companies and motoring bodies like the FIA (whose ex-President founded both Euro NCAP and Global NCAP, FYI). What Global NCAP is trying to do is spread the message to weakly regulated but major car-producing markets to encourage governments to apply minimum UN crash test regulations (like the Indian Government did in 2019) and to set up their own NCAPs.

And, okay, let's say you want to consider a safety rating from the IIHS or Euro NCAP. I'll give you an example (that I've repeated very often, excuse me) why that's a horrible, horrible idea.

Picture yourself as a consumer in Latin America in 2016. The 2016 Nissan Murano is an IIHS 2016 Top Safety Pick Plus. And it comes to Latin American markets as an expensive US-made CBU. Safety-wise it seems like your best option. It performs well in all tests, including the 'overrated' moderate overlap test that the "not-for-real-manufacturers" Latin NCAP also does.


You buy the Murano, bragging about how your car is an IIHS TSP+ and explaining to your friends how IIHS is so much better than Latin NCAP. Like people do with T-Rocs and luxury cars with Euro NCAP in India.

October 2016. Global NCAP and Latin NCAP collaborate with the IIHS to organise a dramatic car-to-car test exposing the low-cost, old Nissan Tsuru's lack of safety compared to US Nissan models.

Nissan's PR goes haywire. Nissan pulls the Tsuru out of production after decades and sponsors a Latin NCAP test on one of their more expensive models, the CBU Murano (including the extra ESC and pole tests required for five stars) to show the public that not all their models are that bad. Except:



You would be lucky to ever walk again if you got into that kind of a crash, in a car you thought was an IIHS TSP+.

Bottom line: it doesn't matter how expensive the car is or how "real" its manufacturer is, better NCAPs' ratings mean squat in markets they're not valid for.

I agree completely that Global NCAP's ratings for India as they stand today miss out on evaluating the performance of a lot of relevant technologies that are now becoming common in the market, and that using it as an overall safety rating might be misleading, for example there's a point where it's probably a wise idea to get a car with slightly lower frontal crash performance in favour of technologies like side airbags and ESC, but that is absolutely no reason to completely dismiss the importance of the basic 64km/h frontal offset crash, at least as a part of safety performance (there are other important technologies consumers should consider that are not assessed because resources were not planned for the India project to continue this long). Yes, the ratings could be more relevant, but it's because Global NCAP is resource-constrained and not because it's hokum.

Major automakers have responded to a bad result for their own car or competitors' (in fear of being tested and the facing the global embarrassment of a bad result) and fit life-saving technology like airbags etc well ahead of regulation. Volkswagen India makes airbags standard? Two days before a Global NCAP publication for the zero star Polo. Toyota makes airbags standard? To sponsor a test on the Etios later in the year to use in marketing. Honda announces new safety direction for India. Random corporate decision out of the goodness of their hearts? No, they had attended Global NCAP's zero star Mobilio test in the same week and collected dummy data, realised the PR mess they were in, and hastily sponsored the improved car while also making the announcement of making airbags standard. And yes, I know it doesn't seem to help that much anymore from the pushing-technology point of view (now it's become the sort of consumer-information programme an NCAP should be, at which stage it should ideally evolve), and significant (2016 Latin NCAP-based) updates that were planned for 2020 were pushed to mid-2022, but as the program evolves either into a permanent Bharat NCAP or even evolves in its current pilot form (and it will soon) it will renew the same thing with other technologies. Even if the Government doesn't mandate it I'm almost sure you'll see some manufacturers frantically fitting their cars with ESC in the next few months. And none of this will work without consumers' trust, which drives these improvements in the first place, which is why it's really sad when 'trusted influencers' try to provoke consumers like this for views.

[jalex77]

Originally Posted by ron178

Really? Both are independent nonprofits, despite what a couple of very poorly informed influencers might try to tell you.
Attachment 2291357
'trusted influencers' try to provoke...

Let me just say that I have my sources who're close with these agencies and not at a liberty here to mention more than that.

Not everyone follows or need a bunch of "social media influencers" or random blokes masquerading as auto journalists to influence their logic, reasoning or understanding.
Seen enough biases and goof ups(around their own set of policies regarding testing) of this "Global NCAP", how they manipulate things like even the ending of test videos to cover up a "5 star" rated car rolling while being tested. That alone is enough for me to view their activities and ratings with suspicion.

It's perfectly cool that you stick to your views. I don't intend to force anyone to subscribe to mine as well, it's a free country. This was a personal view and this matter was debated to death here already in another thread. I don't intend to drag it here anymore.

[BleueNinja]

Voted 'No'

Ceat advert comes to mind, "Road is full of idiots"

Mishap can happen anywhere and anytime. I remember I was involved in an accident where City bus rear ended my Polo on a red light. I thank my lucky stars I was unharmed and the only damage the car took was on boot and rear glass which insurance took care of.

If such mishap were to occur again I would rather be in a safe car than a comparatively low safety rated car.

Infact when we were looking for a sedan we went for Honda City with its higher safety rating compared to it's competitors. We didn't go for vento or rapid as they were similar to our Polo with same engine setup.

But, if you make safety your priority you also end up with comparatively less cars to choose from if you are on a budget. We got lucky with Honda City as it is loaded with essentials, safety tech and is one of the best cars in c-segment.

Although, another aspect is that if you are on a highway a SUV regardless of its safety rating would be better than let's say a hatchback because, god forbid if anyone is in a collision there is less chances of an SUV going under the truck then a hatchback.

[VPJ74]

I am looking for a <11L OTR, urban (read Mumbai) errand car. Car would be a 2nd car (other being a B8 Superb) mostly used for school-drop, shopping, errands and other zips around inner city roads. Affordable, reliable, easy-to-park and no-frills Petrol+Automatic is what me and wife were thinking as key features. It will be used 85% within the city and a rare drive on Hwy (minus the kid). We have the Superb has the family and Hwy car.

The usual suspects are the Swift/i10/i20/Baleno. However, these cars have appalling safety ratings. I believe Safety to be a very important feature in an automobile but should I relax my standards for a city-warrior? Or, should I consider Tata? The Punch and Altroz have great Safety but I have never dared to buy a Tata.

How have other members resolved the Safety vs "Popular" trade-off?

[voldemort]

There's a similar direction here (Safety vs Reliability: What drives you?).

[antz.bin]

A lot of discussion on this topic has happened here:

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/road-...iver-only.html (GNCAP: So, would you use an unrated / poorly rated car as a city driver only?)