[tirumalavoleti]

Very much appreciate the move, unless mandated there would not be force to push the manufacturers.

Remember 2 air bags were luxury feature before government made mandatory, security is not luxury

Still see many manufacturers give 6 air bags only in top variant which has sun roof etc. The customer should have choice of luxury and comfort but not the safety. Safety should always be mandatory.

Its a good thing for volumes as well. People who need basic car and safety will buy base variant. Only people who wants luxury features opt for higher variant. No push for higher variant in terms of safety.

Recent kushaq top AT variants had got 6 air bags version with ~50k difference. Imagine base variant getting 6 air bags with additional 50k, its safe and peace of mind.

[romeomidhun]

If the govt is so much serious about the safety of people, they should also do two things:

1. Show some sympathy towards people who are willing and wishing to move from 2-wheelers (the most unsafe vehicle) to 4-wheelers. So, they should reduce the tax on sub-4m cars so that the additional cost of 6 six airbags can be nullified by the reduced tax element. Reducing the tax from 28 to 14 percentage will do the job.

2. Reduce the tax on fuels. There are many people who opt for 2- wheelers instead of 4- wheelers just because of the high fuel costs. Reduce the fuel tax and persuade them to continue using 4- wheelers for their daily commutes. They will be much safer.

[dust-n-bones]

Is it not more worthwhile for policymaking to focus more on outcomes (safety) rather than technology (airbags)?

If, lets say, ministry research shows that most serious accidents today are caused by

• overworked/untrained drivers,
• dangerous intersections and road quality and
• vehicle rollovers,

then the policy-making goal can (probably) be to reduce this by 50% in a decade by making investments in:

• Re-designed roadways starting with accident prone areas
• Driver training and refreshers. Licence violation enforcement. Restricting number of hours at the wheel, etc
• Strengthening vehicle shell to minimize rollover damage to occupants. Experiment with various ESC softwares, coupled with airbags to understand efficacy.

This level of data must be available with road reserach organizations and insurers. Why not put this data, along-with policy goals and achievements, all in the public domain to have a healthy debate on this important topic? I'm sure many experts from consumer bodies and manufacturers can come up with sound policy suggestions for every review.

Such an approach will also keep policy environment stable (maybe review the policy every 10 years?), which is missing right now. It seems to be driven more by what catches the fancy of the hon'ble minister.

Though it has to be said, the thrust and intent seem to be honest and in the right direction.

[Meph1st0]

I appreciate the decision to make 6 airbags compulsory for vehicles carrying up to 8 passengers. Buyers are generally forced to buy the top-end vehicles as 6 airbags are only available in the top trim. As a buyer, I am happy that safety is kind of getting standardized across variants and not treated as a luxury. However this will make the entry-level cars expensive, hopefully, with the standardization of 6 airbags for all cars, it will become cheaper.
What I would have really loved is if BNVSAP sees the light of the day. All the vehicles sold in India would get rated based on the crash test. Based on the outcome, the government then could mandate better structural integrity or 6 airbags or a minimum number of stars for roadworthiness.

[jithin23]

Though a good move by the government, o feel even ESP, Rear wiper+defogger, Front and rear fog lamps and Traction control need to be made mandatory as these will help in avoiding the accident in the first place.

In a tropical country like India with rains for the better part of the year and fog in the northern regions, The rear wiper+defogger, ESP, TC and both front and rear fog lamps can be put to good use and are highly functional. I just can't imagine driving without a rear wiper and front fog lamps with the heavy rains in Costal KA and KL.

The ESP+TC cost will be a few thousands(below 10k at max) to add a yaw rate sensor and ABS pump calibrated for ESP(this is possible as most of the top variants come with ESP).

The rear wiper+ defogger will cost 5k at max in mass production.

Fog lamps both front and rear will be about 5k combined in mass production.

Plus the government can reduce taxes for these models as these cars would still help in protecting people.

Than all these factors, 2 main factors the government needs to emphasize is

1. Better build quality: No number of airbags of safety systems can save you if the body shell is weak or unstable.

2. Better quality roads and sanity in toll rates: Some parts of the country are having really good roads, but we're a long way from having smooth roads throughout. Plus toll at each toll plaza is close to a hundred rupees which is again very expensive and sometimes these roads aren't maintained well or the toll plazas have some 200 vehicles stuck and each vehicle has to pay to regardless of the queue length(e.g. Nelamangala toll).

[PrasannaDhana]

Well, here is another reason for car manufacturers to increase the already sky high car prices by another 50k!!

In case of an impact, operational curtain airbags do make that investment worthwhile, that is, assuming that the car's frame/shell is stable.

[amolpol]

6 airbags inflating in a Maruti 800 and likes could cause suffocation to the 7-8 bodies stuffed inside it typically, won’t it? Especially in India, when the occupants are more at risk that the car will be mangled due to structural safety issues rather than absence of airbags, let alone the fact that seat belts are ornamental.

And its not going to be only the initial cost that will rise but also subsequent repairs and insurance bills coz those bags are gonna keep popping for a lot more people now. Moreover, how many of these things are easy to fix by the neighbourhood garages, or maybe the newer ITI courses will include airbag repairs as a new chapter in their syllabus.

I think we’re moving to rules where in the foreseeable future there could be mandatory color options also in the name of vehicle safety while the roads remain a major cause of why people drive the way they do and get into accidents everywhere!

[arulpeem]

It is appreciable that GOI is trying enforce technology for safety.
But in a country like ours most of us drivers and riders do not follow most of the safety practices when driving or parking.
Everyday we read about vehicles crashing into parked vehicles on the highway.
How often do we find very slow trucks are two wheelers hogging the right lane. Almost every 100 meteres.
Not to mention about wrong side driving.

In my humble opinion imparting knowledge and enforcement is the most important thing in India to reduce accidents and fatalities.
Look at any of our signal... A two lane road would have 4 to 6 lanes of vehicles crammed and when the signal turns green the flow of vehicles would be much slower than had there been only two lanes of vehicles.
It is not about the collective movement of all vehicles, but the bullies who come and stop diagonally instead of being in the lane and save a few seconds and make the others lose minutes.
The same applies on the highway too.

We need to impart safety as a the most important aspect and it has to start at home also apart from the issue of license and enforcement.

So unless this changes, all these technological advances will not be that beneficial. Looks like the government takes the easiest way of pushing this on the manufacturers and do nothing from their part

[anb]

6 airbags is pointless if the structure of the car is unstable. The decision only helps airbag manufactures.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by CARDEEP

We have seen chassis that barely take the impact of 56 kmph test, there's no side + rear impact tests. How would such untested &/or unsafe chassis become safe just by adding few more air bags. In fact, I believe these vehicles will be more unsafe with proposed additions.

Originally Posted by anb

6 airbags is pointless if the structure of the car is unstable. The decision only helps airbag manufactures.

I'm sorry, that is simply not true.

I can find a number of models tested in other NCAPs that had reasonable to excellent performance in both MDB and pole side impact despite poor structural performance in the frontal impact, thanks to side body and head airbags.

Euro NCAP: 2015 Mitsubishi L200/Triton:

In the frontal offset test, there was extensive deformation of the bodyshell. There was a rupture of the floorpan in the driver's seating position, considerable buckling of the floor in the rear of the passenger compartment and spot welds had failed at the point where the bottom sill meets the C-pillar (the rearmost pillar of the passenger compartment). The car was penalised for this and Mitsubishi were precluded from demonstrating that structures in the instrument panel, such as the steering column and column shroud, would not present a risk of injury to the knees and femurs of occupants in the front seats. Protection of the knees, femurs and pelvis was rated as marginal. There was also insufficient pressure in the airbag to prevent the driver's head from bottoming-out against the steering wheel. Dummy head readings showed that contact had been made with the steering wheel through the deflated airbag and protection of the head was downgraded to adequate. In the full width rigid barrier test, protection of the driver dummy was good for all critical body areas while, for the rear passenger, protection of the neck was adequate and that of the chest was marginal. In both side impact tests - the side barrier and more severe side pole - the L200 scored maximum points, with good protection of all critical body areas. The front seats and head restraints showed good protection against whiplash injury in the event of a rear-end collision and a geometric assessment of the rear seats also indicated good whiplash protection. The L200 does not have an autonomous emergency braking system to assist further in whiplash protection.

Latin NCAP: 2016 Nissan Murano (before front structural reinforcements)

Frontal impact: The protection offered to the driver’s head was adequate and chest protection was marginal. Passenger’s head, chest and neck protection was good. The driver’s knees showed contact just in the border of the knee airbag border and in case of a larger driver the knees could impact with dangerous structures in the dashboard. Passenger’s knees could impact with dangerous structures in the dashboard. Driver’s left tibia showed poor protection due to foot area deformation. Footwell area is unstable and not capable of withstanding further loadings. The damage exposed feet to intrusions and serious injuries. The bodyshell was rated as unstable as the windscreen loadpath and door loadpath were not able to transfer further loadings also the lower hinge of the driver door detached from the A-pillar increasing the risk of ejection and the structure showed intrusion of the firewall. Side impact: The side body and curtain airbags offered good protection to the adult in all body regions. Side Pole impact: The side body and curtain airbags helped to offer good protection to the head and the abdomen as well as pelvis however chest received marginal protection. The head curtain airbag showed a problem in the deployment at the B-pillar level. ESC test (standard equipment): The ESC was tested and its performance met the regulatory requirements of Latin NCAP.

And an excellent case: the Ford Figo and Ka tested by Latin NCAP (similar-looking but differently-performing cars, both with poor side impact structural performance).

Latin NCAP: 2017 Ford Ka + 2 airbags: 0 stars adult protection (before side structure improvements)
Stable passenger compartment in frontal impact
High structural intrusion in side impact + no side airbags: poor chest protection (hence zero stars)

Frontal impact: The driver head had adequate protection. The driver head bottomed out the airbag. Driver chest had marginal protection. The driver and passenger knees areas showed critical structures. Passenger head and neck had good protection while the chest showed adequate protection. The bodyshell was rated as stable and was capable of withstanding further loading. The footwell was stable and showed no rupture after the impact. The vehicle has Seat Belt Reminder (SBR) that meet Latin NCAP requirements for the Driver position only. The car has seatbelt pretensioner only in driver side. In the side impact the head and pelvis had good protection and, the abdomen adequate protection but chest showed poor protection directly in the dummy readings which explains the result of zero stars, the car does not have side airbags, it does not have side impact structural reinforcements in the doors and no pelvis energy absorption elements in the door or inner door panel. The car showed a high penetration of the movable barrier that caused a high displacement of the B-pillar which questions the protection capacity of the car to offer better side impact protection even when equipped with side airbags. The rear door opened during the side impact exposing the passengers to higher risks. The car is not equipped with ESC according to Latin NCAP requirements. Side pole impact test was not performed, the car does not offer side head protection airbags as standard.

Latin NCAP: 2019 Ford Figo + 4 airbags: 4 stars adult protection
Unstable passenger compartment in frontal impact
High structural intrusion in side impact but equipped with side airbags: marginal (third-lowest) chest protection

Frontal impact: The protection offered to the driver head was adequate and passenger head received good protection. Driver and Passenger neck was good. Driver chest received marginal protection and passenger chest received good protection from the restraint systems. Driver and passenger’s knees showed marginal protection as they can impact with dangerous structures behind the dashboard. Driver and passenger’s tibias showed adequate and good protection. Footwell area was rated as stable and showed insignificant deformation. Feet protection is good. The bodyshell was rated as unstable.
Side impact: The car offered good protection to head, abdomen and pelvis while chest received marginal protection. Side Pole Impact: was not performed as the car does not offer side head protection as standards. ESC: The ESC was tested and its performance met the regulatory requirements of Latin NCAP. The car offers 2 frontal SBR. All of the above explain the 4 stars for adult occupant protection.

Press release:

It was noticed a large intrusion in the passenger compartment during the side impact test.

Conclusions:

• When NCAPs say 'stable' or 'unstable' they refer to the integrity of the passenger compartment in frontal impact.
• Frontal structural performance is not necessarily related to side-impact structural performance.
• Even in cases of inadequate side-impact structural performance, side body airbags can help prevent life-threatening injury though to a limited extent.
• It is possible to perform well in MDB (small car T-boning) side impact without side airbags, with a good side structure.
• In pole-type impacts (lampposts, trees, etc) or side impacts (T-bone) with high-riding vehicles, a robust head protection system (eg. curtain airbags or seat-mounted head airbags) would almost certainly be needed to prevent direct head contact with the intruding object and the resulting life-threatening injury.
• The homologation barrier test for side impact (AIS-099) should likely already prevent the sale of vehicles with a side structure so bad that fitting airbags would be pointless.

I still think the government should include a UN R135-equivalent pole test in the AIS standards as part of the homologation process along with this move instead of just a geometric evaluation (which I think will be the case).

Originally Posted by 84.monsoon

Even other manufacturers like M&M would lose a factor they use today to differentiate their higher variants from lower variants.

On the bright side, that will also stop manufacturers from overcharging for optional safety equipment. More often it is also bundled with other unrelated equipment.

Originally Posted by reppy

mandated a minimum 3 or 4-star rating on passenger cars to improve overall safety.

Originally Posted by condor

Make the baseline a 4-star NCAP rating.

Originally Posted by RoadTiger

A minimum NCAP/ Indian NCAP score could also be a good move.

Never going to happen, never has happened even in developed markets. No country uses a 64km/h frontal test for homologation. It's all 56km/h just like India. The high NCAP ratings are driven by intense pressure not only from private buyers but also from commercial fleets, most of whom have policies to purchase no vehicle less than five stars. Governments only have constructive dialogue with NCAPs and sometimes fund them but they are always independent of homologation.

[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by tiagoatrix

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/au...s-7939011.html


Just came across this news. Draft for implementation of 6 airbags in bigger cars approved.
If this becomes a law, the price of 6+ seater car will rise significantly. Imagine buying a base model of Innova for 25 L and top end costing 35 lacs.

My opinion is that, no matter if you cover the entire car with airbags, a poorly built car is going to do more damage to its occupants.

Why don't the ministry propose, implement and mandate stringent crash test for all cars sold in india.

Form an World class agency like Euro NCAP/GNCAP, InNCAP maybe?

First of all, the increase in cost would be only around 10,000 to 20,000 Rs. No need to worry about it at all. Secondly, People keep repeating this “airbags are useless in poorly built cars” argument. Let me ask you this: if someone were to hit you hard with a metal rod, you would want a strong wall or barrier to protect you. That is the body shell. Now let’s assume that you know the wall would crumble with the blow. Now, would you want that metal rod to hit you directly or would you prefer a nice inflated airbag to cushion that blow? In all circumstances, it is better to have an airbag cushion the impact, regardless of the build quality of the vehicle. Obviously having better build quality would provide even better protection. When you look at a side impact, there is nothing but an inch of the door metal between you and the bumper of the impacting vehicle. Without side and curtain airbags, serious injuries are very likely. So having six airbags is an absolute minimum safety requirement and we should welcome it wholeheartedly.

[anb]

Originally Posted by ron178

I'm sorry, that is simply not true.

I can find a number of models tested in other NCAPs that had reasonable to excellent performance in both MDB and pole side impact despite poor structural performance in the frontal impact, thanks to side body and head airbags.

Ok. The general information you get after reading the crash test thread of Seltos was "no point in adding airbags if the structure itself is not stable". That's why I posted such comment.

[CarNerd]

What happened to the use of Tablas as Horns? Maybe he realised that it was a nonsensical dream! Then it was the 120 km/h speed limit. Now he has come to airbags. Why can't he call a meeting and come up with all the things he wants to do at once? It's like he wants to be in the news every 2 months. I think we could start betting on the next thing he might come up with! My bet: I want him to make sure slow moving trucks keep on the left side.

[tiagoatrix]

Originally Posted by Lobogris

First of all, the increase in cost would be only around 10,000 to 20,000 Rs

The cost to REPLACE Driver and Front Co passenger airbag in New creta is more than a lac INR. This includes sensor, wiring kit, airbag, module,new dash, steering, seat belts, labour.

In most cases insurance covers only 50% of the cost, as airbag is considered as a plastic part.

With additional side curtain airbag, the cost of airbag replacement for a mid-size car is going to touch 2 lac INR.

If one doesn't have zero dep insurance through dealer,your savings is going to be wiped. An ambitious lower middle class person will give up his car dream and resort to unsafe 2 wheeler. In the process of adding more airbags, you might push someone out to unsafe mode of transportation.

Airbags are life saver, no denying that. But what's the point in installing 6 airbags in alto? Cars in India has other problems to solve first.

Why doesn't the government pass a law to use 50% UHS/AHS steel? How about making a proper 3 point seat belt for rear passenger. Why not ban cars that wobbles when a truck passes by?

I guess only 1% of Indians use rear seat belts, so why bother adding airbags as it will never deploy.

[whitewing]

As long as the occupant safety is met, it doesn't matter if there are 6 or 0 airbags.To me these sound more knee jerk reactions. As other members have pointed out, mandating more airbags is fine, but, why no mandate on the robustness of the shell? Do we have data that more airbags has more life saving value than a robust shell that doesn't deform?

I can't understand why the Govt needs to get into the solution space? I feel that they should only mandate crash tests like the land planned BNVSAP and let the manufacturer figure out the "how" part.

In addition the Govt should pend more effort in building and maintaining safer roads, ensuring traffic rule offenses are penalized and driving licenses are provided to only those who have learnt to drive.