[Indepth]

I totally disagree with Suzuki's arguments.

What they need to do is make their organisation more cost efficient (not cost cutting).

Structural rigidity / crash worthiness aside, (which anyway is worst for Suzukis) can Mr. Bhargawa explain following :

1. A Kia Carens with 6 airbags at 9.59 lakhs (11.28 lakh for a smaller, low on spec XL6)
2. Recent ScorpioN at 11.99 lakh with a 2L turbo engine. Will/can suzuki ever offer such vehicle at such price?

So clearly they anyway don't price their vehicles any good (for what they offer). The reason may be anything from fatter margins, inefficient manufacturing process, lethargic approach etc.

Yes, this rule will effect Suzuki the most because I think Kia, Hyundai, Mahindra, Tata etc will be able to manage this change with small increase in prices. But Suzuki, by virtue of their government company like work culture, find it difficult.

So, if Suzuki discontinues smaller cars, I will be the happiest person, since that would mean Tata /Mahindra etc might enter those segments.

In Conclusion, safer cars compared to Suzuki cars.

[JediKnight]

Originally Posted by jalex77

Why not make it mandatory for rear passengers to wear seat belts and make it compulsory for children under 12 to sit in the rear seats buckled up secure in a child or booster seat first?

What good are six airbags in a car with poor structural rigidity and when rear passengers never use seat belts?
What good are airbags when even toddlers are made to ride in the front seat on someone else's lap?

Well said. Forcing these safety norms seem more a tactic to look politically correct and progressive than actually increasing safety on the ground.

What about the safety of the guy riding with his family on a two wheeler because he can no longer afford a car. What about the pollutants and exhaust fumes they will inhale. Lung cancer is the number one cancer in India among males.

What about strongly penalizing the guy who drives his 6 air bag car ADAS equipped car at 150 kmph on Indian roads endangering everyone elses life. May be the hi-tech "connected" cars should auto report such violations to the police.

[jalex77]

Originally Posted by Indepth

I totally disagree with Suzuki's arguments.

What they need to do is make their organisation more cost efficient (not cost cutting).

Structural rigidity / crash worthiness aside, (which anyway is worst for Suzukis) can Mr. Bhargawa explain following :

1. A Kia Carens with 6 airbags at 9.59 lakhs (11.28 lakh for a smaller, low on spec XL6)

If I recall correctly, the base version XL6 is more feature rich than the base version Carens.

Then talking of airbags, inspite of being equipped with 6 airbags, didn't the Carens just score the same GNCAP star rating as the Suzuki Ertiga?

Again if I recall correctly, the child safety scores in a GNCAP 3 Star rated Ertiga is actually a shade better than it is in a GNCAP 5 star rated Nexon.

[SahilS]

A bit off-topic but to encourage Suzuki/Hyundai type manufacturers to try for safer cars, government should give incentives(like GST rebate) for cars scoring well on upcoming Bharat-NCAP for few years. Govt can also decide different rebates for different categories of cars for scoring good in NCAP.
Like:
5 star: (get 50% rebate on total GST, especially for smaller cars)
4 star: (get 25% rebate on total GST, especially for smaller cars)
3/2 star: 0% rebate/penalty
1 star: extra 10% GST over total GST
0 start: extra 25% GST over total GST

[Indepth]

Originally Posted by jalex77

Then talking of airbags, inspite of being equipped with 6 airbags, didn't the Carens just score the same GNCAP star rating as the Suzuki Ertiga?

Kindly refer to title of thread. We are talking about costs here, because Suzuki cried over costs involved in providing 6 Airbags, not for other features.

So, Suzuki!! Here it how its gonna work out. Provide 6 airbags,....remove rear ac vent/power windows if need be.

Let the customer decide which vehicle is better equipped alongside 6 airbags. Let the best man win!!

Meanwhile, our Govt has taken a shortcut towards providing marginally better safety, if not substantial.

I believe something is better than anything. If I should choose between 6 airbags and alloys, I should choose the former!!
But since I am stupidly choosing alloys, our Govt. is taking matter in own hands.

So, lets stick to what has been done and appreciate!!
Our Govt. is not going to benefit anything from such rules.

[jalex77]

Originally Posted by Indepth

Kindly refer to title of thread. We are talking about costs here, because Suzuki cried over costs involved in providing 6 Airbags, not for other features.

So, Suzuki!! Here it how its gonna work out. Provide 6 airbags,....remove rear ac vent/power windows if need be.

Let the customer decide which vehicle is better equipped alongside 6 airbags. Let the best man win!!

The matter at large here is safety and I was indeed making a point on that.

I'm no RC Bhargava nor do I represent him, but I was only trying to reply to one of your demands for an explanation about the Carens Vs XL6.

And yes, anything is better than nothing. It also holds true for those trying to upgrade from two wheels to four. A lakh of rupees extra may sound like peanuts to the privileged but for the not so privileged, it's the difference between sticking with that 100cc bike travelling with the whole family and moving on to a small car which even if zero star rated is way safer than that bike like many others have already said here.

[AJ56]

Originally Posted by hemj

Your logic is absolutely right in planet filled with highly educated stephen hawkings and einsteins and ramanujans and aryabhattas. They can think for themselves and make decisions. Not for the current world filled with more than half it's people struggling to feed themselves but want to move from point A to point B quicker than their feet would allow.

The notion that buyers in the entry level segments are somehow incompetent/too stupid to decide what’s best for themselves in their budget, without interference by an overly patronising government hell bent on artificially raising costs of production of cheap cars with unstable body shells, seems rather elitist to me.

One doesn’t have to be an Einstein to figure out airbags and seatbelts help save lives, and if they still decide to buy a car without these features, the authorities shouldn’t be getting in the way.

[mvadg]

It has nothing to do with safety. Our government only makes policies under pressure from commercial and political interests.

If you look at how Tata Motors has been rapidly expanding it's offerings, it seems to me that they are slated to become a major global player soon.

As with everything, the real reason why Maruti and others are slowly decreasing their footprint in India will never be stated in public. They are making way for Tata, IMHO.

Why airbags and crash worthiness? I think real innovation in other areas requires massive R&D and time. Tata will get there eventually like every other entity, but safety is probably cheaper to incorporate and can be a differentiator. Other manufacturers will now claim, like Maruti, that airbags will add a huge amount to the price and make their products uncompetitive in deference to Tata. In about 5 years, ordinary people will not be able to dream of buying any Japanese, Korean or German cars. The Americans have already closed shop.

[volkman10]

Hyundai realigns business strategy, moves away from small cars to more profitable segments.

Strategically moving away from hatchbacks.

consumer shift to SUVs and sedans, the maker of Santro is slowly moving away from affordable small cars to SUV style vehicles and sedans.

Link

[Arun yadav]

Looks like Suzuki(Maruti) is also in for a thing or two @ Indian Politics, given the time they have managed not only to survive but also lead the markets in perhaps their only such market in the world.
Politics as such begins where the common man logic ends.
Dig this:
Small cars are bread and butter for Maruti.
Maruti threatens to stop making small cars.
First reason Maruti made small cars is government.
Government is the reason Maruti will stop making small cars.
Small cars were made for a reason back then.
Small cars will be stopped because the reason is not reasonable any more.
Think it is enough for now

[RGCST]

Originally Posted by TusharK

According to Nitin Gadkari, Minister for Road Transport & Highways, India has barely 1% of the vehicles across the globe but records 10% of the world’s road deaths.

I wonder if anyone bothered to check how many of those 10% deaths were due to less than 6 air-bags v/s due to pathetic roads or lack of implementation of traffic laws. Making ABS & dual air-bags mandatory was a good move but beyond a point the blame (and hence responsibility) should extend beyond just the manufacturers.

[Figopian]

Making cars safer is definitely a good initiative, however, what is also very important and is often missed is the quality of drivers. Any tom, dick or harry can get a driving license in India, it appears that the basic requirement to get a driving license is not to know how to drive, but just to be 18 years old!
As long as we keep allowing everyone who is 18+ right to drive, our roads wont be safer. In India, 'Driver' is the probably only job where nothing else is needed as a qualification apart from age, sad!!

[AKSarkar1]

Well costs will definitely rise due such rules but I am sure that majority of the people (including non petrolheads) understand that safety comes with a certain price.

It is now important to see how car manufacturers tackle this, I am curious to see if the entire burden will be passed onto the customers? E.g. cost of 6 airbags per car is 20K (just a random number) then will manufacturers pass this entire burden onto customers or absorb this hit to a certain level by themselves, of course each manufacturer will follow a different strategy.

I also feel that non essential features like Sunroofs, Diamond cut alloys etc should be made optional for the customer to choose, while safety features such as airbags and ABS should be made compulsory (as is happening). This should help customers get their car for a cheaper rate or at least in a perfect world this should be the case.

I can't remember the last time I used my sunroof and have never cared for 'Diamond' cut alloys etc but what I do want is peace of mind for myself and my family knowing that the car comes equipped with the best safety features that money can buy.

[prajwalmr62]

I would have expected RTOs to have stricter norms for the heavier vehicles first.

1. Proper documents and driver trainings for heavy vehicles. May be like once a year renewal of license or mandatory test? (with reduced chances for corruption, may be online test?)
2. Strict vehicle inspections for trucks and heavy vehicles. How come under-ride bar made of 2mm thick bar is still valid?
3. Check the speed governors functionality, right now most trucks and buses just disable it.
4. Mandatory dash cam for heavier vehicles. Erased/not working? = direct penalty and assumed guilty.

---

I don't see any of the restrictions happening for heavier vehicles which are usually the cause of most of the accidents in Indian highways (especially fatal ones). Instead, we are asking personal vehicles to do better. While I agree it is important, it is never going to reduce either accident count or the fatality rate.

[Naetik30]

Originally Posted by AJ56

The gov. shouldn’t be in the business of mandating anything safety related in cars, let the free market decide what safety features it is willing to pay for and not pay for, forcing people of limited financial means to buy safer cars by arbitrarily raising the cost of production is not in line with a free market society.

Fair enough. How about letting a manufacturer make cars with brake only on the front wheels and optional on the rear wheels. Or should we apply that to the seat belts. Safety should be THE ONLY business of the government. If Indian government had never been in the business of business (manufacturing, etc) we would have never had to listen to such pearls of wisdom from Mr.Bhargava.