[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by JoshMachine

I would even go to the extent of saying we should get speed governors for cars below a certain engine capacity so that their propensity to increase speed beyond a limit and get involved in an accident - may reduce drastically.

If speeds can be limited in taxis, then why not in passenger cars?

Speed governors can induce a state of monotony and drowsiness if you are driving at the max level, which most people will on a highway.High speed is not always the main cause of an accident. Braking (ABS-EBD), stability (ESP), crash avoidance (ADAS) and ultimately crash protection (multiple airbags) are key. It follows that vehicles which are not equipped with some of these features should not be highway legal after a few years.

[Turbohead]

The cheapest, toughest and the most sensible way of dealing with road safety is to train and test drivers rigorously before giving a driver's license.

Reducing deaths using airbags is not the solution for death induced by bad driving discipline/manners.

Can't understand why MoRTH can't talk about that.

[anjan_c2007]

The suggestion is welcome as a future strategy for all automakers to make car bodies compatible enough to be fitted with such an option. If the buyer can pay, he needs to be offered safety devices such as six airbags in all variants of the particular make and model.

Till ten years back, most of the lowest variants of all budget A and B class, mid-size cars and even SUV's of the C segments made in our country offered no airbags at all. Higher variants offered one that soon became two.That meant, your life was as valuable as the variant you had selected. It still is and if one buys the lowest variant he gets the least of optional safety devices. If a buyer can pay he needs to be offered safety devices in all variants as options. And mind you, most of the car sales figures are from the several variants of these earlier nil and now one /two airbag fitted cars/SUV's.

Now the driver side airbag since two years is mandatory and by December 31st 2021, the passenger side ones will become compulsory. (already compulsory for the post 01.04.21 new launches)

[pandabear]

Six airbags? You got to be kidding, please make proper three point seatbelts mandatory for all passengers. Each car should have a safety rating tamper proof sticker prominently displayed just like we have BEE ratings. Just like one buys a zero star rated appliance, similar rating sticker will coax manufacturers to improve their safety ratings.

Finally ESP ABD ABS TCS blah blah are all great but its all useless unless the government invests in some system to educate the idiot behind the wheel.

[Raghu M]

Originally Posted by locusjag

Already cars are unaffordable. These changes will further put them out of reach of the aspiring middle class. I'm glad that it's only an appeal and not a mandate. India isn't ready for this, keeping in mind the economics involved - I'm not stating this with safety in mind.

When you have most people riding 2 wheelers as entire families and when you have the car penetration at only 2-3% of the population, the next logical step toward safety for the masses is to shift many of them into affordable 4 wheelers (which was Ratan Tata's base use case for the Nano). That is a step that would save many more lives than 6 airbags that may not help in different instances (e.g., when a speeding low-slung car plugs itself underneath a truck without an underrun protection bar).

Exactly my thoughts. You bring in 2 airbags as mandatory, it makes sense. Even the GNCAP crash testing is done based on that. But 6 airbags would be over board. The already expensive cars will get even dearer and considering the ever increasing fuel charges, car companies will start reporting losses. So, what next? mandatory auto park assist maybe!

[ramki.grandhi]

It's easy to urge or suggest such safety options from SIAM, and its well intended too. But this is high time government also show some love towards Indian auto industry w.r.t. taxes. If government's intentions are honest towards their citizens, they can do something like this:

1) Reduce the GST for cars that scored 5 GNCAP or Euro NCAP.
2) Reduce the GST for cars that provide 6 airbags.
3) Reduce import duties on automotive parts that are qualified as safety features, for example: hardware for ESP, airbags etc.
4) Stop seeing car as a luxury item.

[Bhalla]

Dual front airbags and ABS are already mandatory now. So rather than focusing on number of airbags, government should get strict on forcing car makers to do structural changes in cars to make them tough and also make features like ESP/TC compulsory. Crash results of Nexon, Altroz, Breeza, Thar, Tigor, Etios, Triber, Magnite prove that cars with dual airbags, ABS, ESP can score well if there is stable, strong body structure.

[lina]

6 airbags, isofix, child seat anchor points, 3 point seat belts for all passengers with headrest, all wheel disc brakes, 4 star crash test rating where the crash test should include full-frontal impact and pole crash tests. These should be mandatory and required by law. If that increases the cost of the car, then downgrade your choice of car. Features like ventilated seats and sunroofs are taking preference over safety (looking at you, kushaq).

As a car buyer in the <20L segment it is so difficult to find a car that matches these criteria. I think only XUV300 fits the bill.

[sid_deb]

On one hand, the finance ministry is forcing people to ditch cars and adopt the riskier 2 wheelers due to

• entry level car prices increasing anywhere between 50-100% since the last 5 years
• petrol price skyrocketing to over Rs 100/liter across most states
• adding financial uncertainties due to Covid

and on the other hand, road ministry is pushing manufacturers to add more safety features. Clearly shows how disjointed the government is.

There needs to be a clear outcome lens on citizen satisfaction and well-being. Such half hearted measures never work.

[superbad]

Seems the government is trying to push the onus of road safety on everybody, but itself. How about the following for a change :-
1) Improve the road conditions, make local corporators & politicians accountable for road state in their constituency.
2) Better planning of city roads as opposed to the current trend of finishing a tar road & then starting it's concretisation from one end.
3) Publicly display the toll collection & it's expenditure on websites.

[altius]

I remember reading in some GNCAP crash test reports for Indian cars, that the structure is so unstable that adding Airbags will not help much with respect to passenger safety. So any mandate to increase airbags should be accompanied by a mandate to increase crash worthiness ratings in order to be really useful.

[anb]

There is no point in increasing airbags if the structure is unstable. The Govt should introduce some tax reduction to cars which have a stable body shell.

[Sabareesan]

A better suggestion would be to provide the same safety equipment as standard across the variants.

Most of the times, one is forced to buy the top-end variant if he/she wants to get more airbags or TC or ESP, even if they do not want the other gizmos like the sunroof or leather seats.
Safety should not be considered a luxury and instead be considered a necessity. Most lower variants of cars skimp out on rear wiper and rear fog lamp. Come on! Isn't visibility important and isn't it necessary for safe driving? To sum it up, I would rather have a car with all the safety features, with a smaller engine and no "luxury" equipment, than have a car with a larger engine but lesser safety features.

[The Traveler]

Mod Note : Please do NOT post messages that add little or no informational value to the thread. We need your co-operation to maintain the quality of this forum.

We advise you to read the Forum Rules before proceeding any further. Request to post ONLY when you have something substantial to add to a discussion.

[AROO7]

Originally Posted by anb

There is no point in increasing airbags if the structure is unstable.

Yes, you are absolutely right about it.

Here is an excerpt on how the crumple zone and structure design play a major role in a car crash and not the airbags.

The core idea of crashworthiness structure design is to preset a crumple zone, which can absorb the kinetic energy of vehicles during crashes, possibly lowering the acceleration. In a frontal crash, for example, the stiffness of the front structure determines the acceleration pulse during a crash. This pulse should have a specific shape, to minimize the risk for the occupant. During a massive collision, there are three essential phases (Witteman, 1999) as follows:

1.
Crash initiation phase. In this phase the sensor triggering for the belt pretensioner and the airbag must take place. For optimal sensor triggering the front end of the car should be sufficiently stiff to generate within a short time interval a velocity change that lies above the trigger value of about 6 km/h.

2.
Airbag deployment phase. In this phase the airbag is inflated, and the occupant tightens the belts while moving forward with a relative velocity with respect to the car. To minimize the injuries due to the impact with the airbag, the deceleration of the car should be sufficiently low in this phase, implying that the stiffness must be relatively low.

3.
Occupant contact phase. In this phase the occupant has hit the airbag and there is a stiff contact between the occupant and the car. In this phase, high decelerations may occur because the occupant will not be subjected to further shock loads caused by contacts with the interior. The frontal car structure should be stiff enough to decelerate substantially in the remaining time.

Here is the link of the article if anyone is interested in giving it a read.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...g/crumple-zone