[ajaiD]

Voted No.

Why play with someone else's life when one knows better. I am 100% sure that nightmares will follow if the driver dies in an accident.

[AMG Power]

To those who answer No, consider the GNCAP rating your body has when you next take a walk.

[anthusiast]

Voted Yes.
My take is that a a poorly rated car is sufficient for cities. Advantages:
* The cars cost less upfront and it's mostly small cars which is easy to retain for 15+ years.
* 800-1000 cc petrol cars deliver good fuel economy.
* The cities are only getting crowded and speeds are mostly below 60 kmph.
* Finding parking spots is easy and the small dimensions help navigating in narrow roads.

Still need a safer car for a beater ? There's the Tata Tiago.

For those who can afford parking space for two cars it is good to have a beater for city runs.

[Grease_Monkey]

I drive an Unsafe car - Alto K10 with single airbag. This was the best I could get in 2017 which was due to family pressure and other factors. The car is having a fun engine, which is one of the factors for me picking although I started looking for models with ABS & Airbags only. I guess I was naive / lack of knowledge that having an airbag with weak shell will save me better than one without.
In hindsight if I could rewind time back, I would have gone for far safer Tiago XE/XM, even without ABS or Airbags due to the better body shell strength.
For short trips to the market and all, I use my motorcycle due to ease of parking and faster commuting although it doesn't have ABS. I am always geared up - minimum Sharp4 rated full faced helmet, even if I have to go just a few meters.
I have done a lot of highway trips on these two vehicles though something I am quite ashamed of, and am saving up to buy the absolute safest car / CSuv I can afford (waiting for Kushaq's pricing and reviews).
And for those who think bad accidents can't happen in a city because is slower speeds are badly mistaken. Most of the cars sold in the market, even the smaller ones can go at least 2 - 3x the speed limit so having a safe car for the city should be a must, if possible.
I think all cars on sale in the market should be assessed by GNCAP so that buyers can make an informed decision. Had I known that just by paying a little extra, I can get a 4 star car I would have made the choice in a heartbeat.

[JoshMachine]

Voted yes. Just like the other 51% (really not that an overwhelming majority).

The context here is clear, we expect a city environment where it’s generally about short-travel errands, relatively lower speeds, relatively controlled traffic patterns and hence “relatively” lesser chance of safety getting compromised.
All this with respect to comparison against a highway run where everything is just the opposite of what I mentioned above.

So, yeah, with the above in mind, am OK to use the “unrated” or poorly rated car for city use.
However, when in this car, I am NOT ok to stop wearing the seat belt + NOT ok to stop watching out for those idiots cross-crossing the traffic junction + NOT ok to talk on mobile while driving.

I have a Hyundai EON (mid level variant) and Vento (Highline).
No prize for guessing which car is used where

[shashank.nk]

My vote is Yes.

The city car we have now (Swift ZDi) is rated at 3 stars. When I bought it in 2013 I had no idea about its unstable body structure so did the best I could and picked up a car with 2 Airbags and ABS with the intended usage being split 80/20 city and highway. Once the GNCAP results were out, the usage is 95% city and 5% highway to keep the engine in decent shape.

What I realized over the years is its alright to have a not so safe car purely for city use as my usage involves driving 6kms to and from from office where my max speed is perhaps 40km/hr. I rarely have to do airport runs or drive on ring roads where perhaps the Swift won't feel safe due to much higher speeds and presence of heavy vehicles doing good speeds too.

However, if I had the budget for a Swift today, I'd probably look at a safer car as then I'm not restricted to only a sedan on the highways when I visit places with poor roads or when parking at the destination isn't easy/safe.

[fhdowntheline]

A city car like a sub 3.8m length hatch is always a practical convenient option. It lets you squeeze into parking lots easily. As compared to a 2-wheeler, it also avoids exposure to pollution (air and noise) and weather elements. If it is a hatchback with higher ground clearance like S-Presso/Kwid/Redigo/Ignis, it can provide some capability in the unpredictable road conditions or during monsoon conditions which tend to create heavy water logging in recent years. So all in all, it is better than a 2 wheeler, no matter how high quality helmets and leather armour you wear. The 200 Kg bike itself can be a huge liability on your body in an accidental drop in most situations.
While GNCAP scores are highly useful, they measure the safety of a car only under specific conditions of an accident I'd say 50 % of the safety lies in the way the user drives. People have driven Premier Padmini's safely all their adult lives and also wrecked their BMWs (and themselves) in reckless accidents.

[McLaren Rulez]

If it is a temporary car for a short while or a taxi or your budget stops at the Alto, you can't really choose - so it is what it is. But if it's buying and owning said car for use in the city, then it's a no from me.

At every price point from the Tiago and above, you have a safe option. What you might sacrifice are other aspects of the car like performance, features, ease of ownership and so on. For me, this is one of the easiest choices in the world. A better chance of walking away from an accident always takes priority over a few bhp or a sunroof.

[PaddleShifter]

Voted Yes.

I can not afford a separate city car but if I do, it would be either Alto/SPresso or Kwid or a Santro.

All these cars are known to have low safety ratings.

If I could afford multiple cars including permium/luxury car(s), then I would consider a TATA Tiago or TATA Altroz as a city car because of the safety and comfort offered by these cars over Alto/SPresso/Kwid.

By the way, my one and only present car is Maruti S-Cross. It isn’t rated either but I believe it is equivalent of 4 star rating just like Brezza.

[GNG19]

Voted yes.

For cars with low GNCAP ratings:

When driving on congested city roads at low speeds, the likelihood of a high-speed accident is low. In case one is limited by the budget, there should be no reason to hold off on buying a car for this reason.

As GTO mentioned in the first post, I have my doubts an Ola/Uber car will rank very high on any safety rating. I will not even go on to discuss travelling in an auto rickshaw/cycle rickshaw or even walking from point A to B which often would be on the road thanks to non-existent footpaths at least in my city.

Regarding unrated cars:

These form the vast majority of the cars sold in India. Right from the Hyundai Creta to the Tata Harrier, the Honda City, even the Toyota cars. How many of the cars built or assembled in India have actually been crash tested by the GNCAP?

By extension most of us (if not on TBHP, then in real life) would have purchased car not knowing what the crash rating would be.

[BrakingBad]

Voted "NO"

With the amount of insane drivers within city limits, it is advisable to use a safer car everywhere. Think about BLR Nice Road or Mumbai sealink or any express ways, Road to Airports inside city limits, you may end up going with less safe car and what can happen in highway can happen within these expressways inside city.

In Bangalore, i have seen many vehicles hitting median/going over them/or meeting with other serious incidents. I believe in "Accidents can happen anywhere for anyone" and would always recommend to have the safest car possible for your budget.

Just think about "Gopinath Munde's" accident, if he has been in a safer car, we may have him alive now. (certainly not going into political conspiracy theories).

Drive safe.

[DicKy]

Voted Yes. Mainly for two reasons.

1.When the alternatives are unsafe two-wheelers.

2.My family is in two minds over the Spresso and Ignis.

When we had our F10D WagonR it was our local runabout. But the unspoken rule was that it was to be used only for short runs in a radius of maximum 5-6km.

As a replacement for our F10D WagonR, size-wise the Spresso looks like its spiritual successor. The current WagonR is kinda bloated, and to be frank the Ignis makes more sense for a few thousand rupees more.

Problem is thanks to the linear development model of Kerala, even to go to the nearest junction we have to use the highway. Yes, it maybe narrow and unbecoming of a highway. But at the end of the day it is one. So you have everything from long distance buses to 18 wheelers using this pre-independence stretch at 60-70km/h. Add to that undivided roads.

So it kinda makes the Ignis the favourable choice. True, it is not the safest one, but hey, safer than some 20 lakhs vehicles.

But since we are talking about second(?) cars for just city usage, Spresso makes a case for itself. Also, if I may say in defence of 0 star rated cars like the Spresso. Five or ten years ago, a 0 star rated car or a car that failed a crash test would mean the A pillar would be obliterated and the front passenger area would be pushed till the B pillar, with the roof collapsing as well. Now? Atleast the cabin looks intact, eventhough the dummies are injured. The crash tests get more stringent each year. In now way am I supporting unsafe cars or the more deplorable double standards shown by some manufacturers. But compared to a 10+ year old WagonR, the Spresso looks kinda okay. Compared to a motorcycle, waaayy more.

Ofcourse, the Magnite with the 4 star rating has made things more difficult, but then, just like the other 4 star (Tiago), the mediocre engine performance is a bummer.

[The21st]

Yes. In cities, I feel like the speed is manageable for an unsafe car. Or I would think if someone is driving a bike in the city, why not an unsafe or poorly rated car.

But still if I am having the budget to buy a Polo TSI as a secondary car, I would go for that since I am having a choice. If I am in a tight budget, I won't mind buying an alto.

[superguy282]

Originally Posted by roy_libran

Assuming a typical City speed 80 kmph Net velocity head-on crash, I would much rather be on a motorcycle with my full safety gear with L2 protectors, full height riding boots, proper gloves and a Sharp 5 helmet, than place my trust on an egg shell like that of an Alto or Spresso or whatever. I also have a much better chance at crash avoidance due to superior braking, maneuvering abilities and for the fact that I am always ATGATT.

If you are able to invest in all of this gear as well as a motorcycle that can comfortably go at 80kmph, why would you buy an Alto?

The two wheeler in question here is the Splendour Bajuwale Uncle uses for his daily 25km commute. I would rather see him in an Alto.

[vb-saan]

Voted No.

With cities much more spread out now, even for short city runs I would prefer a well-rated car; a signal jump at 60 kmph can be fatal. And all the more important in places like Kerala (e.g. my hometown Thrissur) where the private bus drivers do 100m drag race between bus stops (well within city limits).