[nick.cs]

Voted No. The car may make sense during the day when the general speeds are lower. However at nights at least post 9-10pm in Bombay have seen cars doing upwards of 70 kmph easily. Also the green garbage vans are the biggest nightmare. I see one around i'll give them way even if i am sitting in a 6 star car. Have seen trucks and vans at high speeds on both the highways during night.

Better to have peace of mind than the option of choosing which car to take and wondering why i did not take the other one if anything untoward happens

[armaan_singh]

Voted Yes,

I currently drive an Spresso, though to be fair when I purchased it, the 0 rating hadn't yet been given.
It's the top variant with dual air bags, abs etc.
Its an awesome little city mover, love the engine and with the high stance it has the go anywhere attitude.

I'm sure nobody would want to own an "unsafe" car but this largely boils down to budgets and requirements, if you need a new car in under 4.5 Lacs on road, well then you're pretty much out of luck .

[kpkeerthi]

Votes Yes. +1 to everything GTO said which I rationalised and resonated with while making the purchase decision of a hatch for city use.

[jithin23]

A car is already 5 to 10x costlier than a two wheeler. Most of us belong to the working class and we can afford to go for only one car in most cases and two is a rarity. Why not go for a car with the safety features than the one without it. If purchased under loan, that difference is equal to a tankful of diesel. I'd still drive a safer car than going for a 0 star car

Voted for no.

I'd say go for a car with maximum safety features even through out exceeds by a lakh or lakh and a half. If this is the only car for the all rounder duty, then it's a no brainer to go for all the safety features

As GTO mentioned, getting a fun+frugal+safe car is a very rare combination.

Oh yes, this is one poll where both sides of the coin cab be justified and tricky to answer!

[sandeepmohan]

Voted Yes.

Approaching this in a slightly different way. If all I can afford is a Renault Kwid or a Suzuki Alto, for me, thats 100x safer than taking my 4 member family on my Bajaj CT100. Yeah, I can't afford a GNCAP or "safe" car but that does not mean I don't care. I buy what I can afford and what I think is the safest (or best) out there.

[sumant_p]

I can think of 2 reasons, why even an unrated car is safer in the city vis-a-vis a 2-wheeler in a city.
Our moon crater sized potholes and stray dogs chasing after vehicles. I have seen many a riders skid and fall, trying to avoid rain water filled potholes or chasing street dogs. I would definitely consider an Alto over a Scooty or Activa.

[TurboGuy]

Had I already owned one unrated car for the city use, I'd have been continue using it for the short spin around the city. I voted NO as I don't own one for exclusive city drive. If at all I pick one in the future, I'd rather go for a minimum 3 star rated car as in the last 7 years or so I've been used to the build quality of the Germans and I find it a little awkward to invest in something which is not meeting the safety standards if at all it's for the city use alone. Kudos to Tata and Mahindra for making their product line safe for occupants and of course affordable.

[Apex1815]

Since I own single car (Grand i10 Sportz), I have different perspective to this.

I use it daily for office commuting in Bangalore Traffic and long highway drives occasionally (During holidays). Travelling by car makes me feel much safer than travelling by my motorcycle. I know the limits of my car and prefers to drive sedately (max 85~90 Km/hr on highway drives).

For my next purchase I will definitely consider a much safer car.

[Dieseltuned]

I am in two minds, one is to vote yes as I drive a tin can called wagonR of 2012 vintage. I had no idea about crash ratings and stuff when I got her in 2012 but as I learnt more now I desire a safe car even within cities. Our cities are full of morons called rickshaw drivers and ola/uber drivers and not to mention the ever eager BEST drivers.

Regards
Dieseltuned

[saur95]

Voted No

I completely understand the POV of many BHPians who have brought in the criteria of affordability into the picture. Yes, a car is in almost all cases safer for someone graduating from a bike.

If you already own a car, you're probably not going to ditch it all of a sudden for various reasons. But if you're buying a new vehicle, most cars under 7-8L are mechanically and electrically quite basic. The difference in reliability isn't too significant and there's always workarounds to keep running cheap. Getting that Tiago might not be as bad a proposition as you think.

What I never get is this argument that city driving is safer than highway driving. I've done speeds above 50 kmph consistently in both Bombay and Bangalore and I've seen other drivers go even faster. Considering the higher vehicle density, general disdain for traffic rules, complete lack of spatial awareness due to mobile phones and urgency to get to work faster, aren't there higher chances of one finding themselves part of an incident (Fender bender or full blown accident)? Unless you were to limit your use to 1-2 km around your house (consider walking?), I don't see how this works.

Defensive driving can help avoid a majority of incidents and both dad and I have avoided any major accidents due to the same. But a well-rated car might just make the difference on that unlucky day that you're rammed into.

[dhanushs]

Voted Yes. There is no harm in using those four wheels for pottering around the town. Even if you have a short speed stint, I seldom go above 60 or 80kmph in Bangalore. So, if that's what gets the job done then so be it.

However: I would ideally prefer something like an old Jeep inside the city, or a car in which I dont really need to bother if the bikers or auto guys are going to scratch it.

[Sran]

I am willing to buy a real tiny car for urban commute without giving any thought about GNCAP rating, something like Wuling Hong Guang EV. Will this car even get a full safety feature? I do not care. If something like it comes under 3 lakh with 100 km range, I will buy it in a heartbeat. Imagine the ease of parking this car, I will be able to park it between electricity pole and some random boundary like an auto.

[KVNair]

Voted "Yes".

I don't like to use two wheelers in crowded cities anymore. I was waiting at a signal and for no fault of mine, a new learner in an Activa just came at full speed and dashed my bike. I was thrown flat on the ground and suffered bad bruises. My elderly relative on the back also suffered leg injuries, which took a long time to heal. I still felt guilty for that.

A nano is my second car and I prefer to use that in city and not ride at all if possible in the city. So, for people who can buy a cheap second city car, I think it is better to use an unrated car than ride a two wheeler.

That's my opinion from my experience. Others may have their own views and that is okay.

[vsrivatsa]

My answer personally is a Yes. I currently have the Ignis as a City car and at the time of purchase the GNCAP Rating was not available. What is available now says "Made in India Ignis exported to Africa scored 3 stars from GNCAP" - so maybe its not too bad.

I think if GNCAP comes into picture the choice of vehicles become seriously limited for a basic City Car. However, we must say the situation has improved drastically with a car like Tiago offering Safety at the lower end of the spectrum. But then again, the 3 cylinder engine of the Tiago sucks in comparison with the refined K Series engine (K12M) on offer from Maruti. So, its more of a compromise one has to make. So I possibly would still buy the Ignis over the Tiago even today.

[rpm]

We have used, and still are using an unrated vehicle for all our commutes. I believe it's fine to do so, as long as you are aware and ready to accept the vehicle's shortcomings, preferably before you have bought the car. Sometimes it is dictated by need, and sometimes by want. Everyone values different things— GTO absolutely abhors a lame engine, while I, on the other hand, am a rather sedate driver for the time being (even though I don't drive much).

Statistics, I feel, can be used to sway your decision to either side of the poll only if you were already on the fence about the topic at hand though. I'm certain about my position on this topic, not because of the presented stats, but because of the belief that different people have different priorities, and a GNCAP rating may or may not be as significant as other priorities. Sometimes it may even be a priority, but may not make it into the final draft, due to monetary constraints or unsatisfactory permutations and combinations.

Contrary to GTO's view though, I would like to come to the defence of lame-engined-but-safe cars for city use.
With speed restrictions like we have in Chandigarh, where you are limited to 60 km/h tops, unless you want a speed ticket (I assume a similar case for most other cities and UTs in India, differing only in strictness of enforcement maybe), lame-engines today are very passable. Almost every car today can work up to a 60 without breaking a sweat. Part of the reason outlined by GTO to make a case for unsafe cars restricted to city use, pays homage to such speed restrictions, which make driving a rather sedate affair.
Sure, we can have our enthusiast/petrolhead moments starting off from red lights as soon as it turns green and briskly accelerating to 60 km/h, grinning ear to ear, but those are few and far between.
Yes, there are still more things to consider, like engine refinement and the like, and you may ultimately end up having to compromise one thing for the other, and that is where the order of your priorities kicks in. Ultimately, you and I will buy what best fits our needs and/or wants, no two ways about it.

That said, I would like to reiterate— any car is fine, as long as you know what you're buying.