[Turbanator]

Originally Posted by The Rationalist

Those who think that safety ratings are a gimmick should only buy cars with the lowest ratings. Why waste money when one’s driving skills are enough on our roads

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Why this all or nothing approach?
Why should a person (like me) who believes that cautious & alert driving + seatbelts are 4/5ths or more of the story of keeping safe buy only low rated cars to please you?.

If someone can afford it, there is no harm in picking the one with the best safety ratings but if budget is a concern, something is better than nothing

We must remember that the most important reason for accidents (90% + per study) is human error, so if two vehicles are involved, statistically, there is a large probability (50%) of someone else causing the accident and one getting hit for no fault of his. Though, if one is a safe driver, the probability of a crash will be lower but still, we cannot predict the actions of others.

Safety ratings are for a reason, and as in the video above, we can see the difference. So, if one can afford it, one should consider the safest. If manufacturers can produce something safe for the EU or North American market, there is no harm in offering the same products at different costs in other markets.

Such studies will probably force manufacturers to stop having a differential value of life across markets.

[The Rationalist]

Originally Posted by Turbanator

If someone can afford it, there is no harm in picking the one with the best safety ratings but if budget is a concern, something is better than nothing

Exactly! Tiago which can be had for ₹6 lakh has a 4* rating. Only three cars cost less than that, Alto,S-presso and Kwid. The combined sales of those 3 come to around less than 5% of the 3 million cars sold in India. So >95% of cars that cost above ₹6 lakh can be made safe to a big extent. Budget can't be told as a constraint for the 95% buyers.

Instead the manufacturers are prioritising profits. We need to call a spade a spade, instead of telling crash tests are not a good thing and harp on driving skills (a very subjective thing and to be honest the driving skills in our country is a joke, ask anyone who have tried to get a driving licence in EU or Middle East) and experience!

[SuperGirl_Dad]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

What was the purpose of this other than virtue signaling. After all one is an older model built to the laws & standards of Argentina by the way and the other is a newer model built to the standards of the European Union. There is a reason countries of the Global South do not always follow the much higher (and more expensive) standards of the European Union. And that is to make the car, a reasonable car, still affordable to the middle class of those economies.

Safety standards are good, better safety standards are better but a safety standard which means fewer can afford it and are therefore compelled to ride 2-wheelers are counter productive. I notice in the last few years even on Team BHP virtue signaling on safety ratings has become an industry as if to say that a car rated 2 stars is unsafe - maybe relative to a 5 star rated one but not in absolute terms.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Why this all or nothing approach? Why this approach that if someone disagrees with your view they be damned? Why should a person (like me) who believes that cautious & alert driving + seatbelts are 4/5ths or more of the story of keeping safe buy only low rated cars to please you?

Dear Narayan, The point of these type of test is not to show a particular manufacturer in bad light. But the practices that has been going on in the industry to push substandard products into developing market under the rhetoric "purchasing power is still low" and to "increase profit margins in competitive markets". In your recent search for replacing the Volvo XC60 you narrowed down to Kia Seltos. Had you went ahead with booking and buying it for ~25 lacs would you as a customer still be happy with seeing the below results?






If these cars had been made to collide at the NCAP facility and we see a stark contrast in the car behavior, would we (Indians) still be happy with it. The point of this exercise is to show the double standards that has been followed and hope it will result in better cars for perceived developing countries (just see the new Hyundai Verna (Made-in-India Hyundai Verna scores 5 stars in the Global NCAP!) results ).

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

It is a misnomer to think that a 5-star rated car is X times safer than a 1-Star rated car. 15 years back these ratings were non-existent at least in the Indian context. Now they are being put on a pedestal as God's truth despite the fact that the rating test are only a narrow band of circumstances a car might find itself. A cautiously driven 0-rated car is safer than a rashly driven 5-star rated car. Too much is being placed on the shoulders of these ratings when 80% or more of the story is in our driving and caution.

The first 18 years of my driving life I drove what today would be called 0-rated cars - Maruti 800, Premier Padmini, Standard Herald - got by just fine without a single incident.

It should also be taken in context of the surrounding traffic. Yesteryear drivers had more safer driver trainings. Let me admit - my father is a better driver than myself .