[Viraat13]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

Are we expecting too much from ARAI to define and set some basic safety standards?

Why should someone else have to tell a person to be safe? Are the consumers not aware enough? Fact of the matter is that most people will NOT go in for ABS and/or airbags because of the chalta hai or dekha jayega attitude. On top of that they do not want to spend more money for something that doesn't have an immediate or apparent utility. It is up to the consumers themselves. Most manufacturers do offer these safety features. Although it must be said that they should be offered to the customer regardless of the trim/variant. It's not like the choice is not there for the people who choose to have safety equipment.

One thing I would like to stress upon is that the manufacturers should provide the option of safety equipment to the consumer regardless of what trim/variant he is purchasing. The rest is up to the individual.

[Gansbab]

Originally Posted by SPIKE ARRESTOR

Hi Gandhar,

Head Impact Test- Applicable to M1 and not N1, why??

You are correct that some of the legislation is only around M1 (passenger vehicles) as the the number of passenger cars far outnumbers those of commercial vehicles. This is the logic put forward by the manufacturer's btw to get away with the minimal of legislation worldwide.

I personally would like to extend all M1 applicable legislations onto N1 vehicles derived from an M1.

Originally Posted by SPIKE ARRESTOR

Wiper stall Test- Can be easily done away / controlled if fiddled.

I know a thousand cheats to get away with far more important and safety related tests like brakes, emissions. But that is not the point is it? The reason for the wiper stall test is that a wiper should be in operations under all circumstances. Manufacturer's need to respect the legislation and meet it not find a way to bypass it.

Originally Posted by SPIKE ARRESTOR

Lighting Installation- I have seen parts failing in COP but still clearing the Lighting Installation tests.

It may be a specific case, but if the component fails COP, the approval may be revoked. The installation tests are vehicle based and the objective is to make sure that they are in a location visible to other road users. Its a bit difficult to draw comparison between the results of component tests and installation tests.

Originally Posted by SPIKE ARRESTOR

PS- This is just an e.g. I know many such loopholes.

Again the same point. The objective is not to find a loophole but to aim to meet the requirements. No legislation is perfect and continuous efforts are made to make it robust. However, it depends on the manufacturer how he wants to play it.

I think you are tuned in to homologation and come in from a manufacturer's school of thoughts. Is this someone I know??

Gandhar.

[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

Gansbab - I will appreciate if you can start a thread (more, if required) describing how the ARAI conducts the various tests - FE, crash, lighting, noise, emission, etc.

Unrelated:-

One thing that has always had me worried is the lack of standardisation in HCV bodies. Just look at the number of custom built bodies for both trucks and buses. There is absolutely no awareness of safety (visibility, for example) requirements when HCV bodies are built in the disorganised sector. (Unorganised / SSIs does not adequately phrase it). Any steps to tackle this? How will the rules (if any proposal exists) allow the vehicle owners to still customise (this is the international practise) the bodies?

[Gansbab]

Originally Posted by Viraat13

Why should someone else have to tell a person to be safe? Are the consumers not aware enough? Fact of the matter is that most people will NOT go in for ABS and/or airbags because of the chalta hai or dekha jayega attitude. On top of that they do not want to spend more money for something that doesn't have an immediate or apparent utility. It is up to the consumers themselves. Most manufacturers do offer these safety features. Although it must be said that they should be offered to the customer regardless of the trim/variant. It's not like the choice is not there for the people who choose to have safety equipment.

One thing I would like to stress upon is that the manufacturers should provide the option of safety equipment to the consumer regardless of what trim/variant he is purchasing. The rest is up to the individual.

Dear Virat,

That is exactly the point, I was making. The customers can force the manufacturers to get what they want. However, in India our price centric market means that a bare bones car without the requisite safety features would sell more than a car with a decent array of safety features primarily due to cost.

I agree that manufacturer's would want to give in more features as options, be it on the top end models of all vehicles. However, it's a catch 22 situation. No supply => no demand => no supply.

Gandhar

[bblost]

@Gansbab: I have always wanted to ask this question. Its with regard to the black dot that is stuck on head lights. Some state governments enforce the rule. Some don't.

Do modern cars need this stupid sticker.

I am asking this because in most cars, one can easily see that the thrown of the left light is longer than the length of the right light in Hi beam.

[amitwlele]

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

Gansbab - I will appreciate if you can start a thread (more, if required) describing how the ARAI conducts the various tests - FE, crash, lighting, noise, emission, etc.

+1 for this suggestion. Gansbab i think this should be done by you.

I was going through this thread since afternoon and checking out the different posts. In some of the posts there were complaints that low end models do not have the option of ABS, Airbags etc. I am confused. Wouldn't having these options in low end models make them costly and then they would count as top end models???

Then your post about the role of ARAI was helpful in clearing the doubts. Would be following this thread for further updates.

[Gansbab]

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

Gansbab - I will appreciate if you can start a thread (more, if required) describing how the ARAI conducts the various tests - FE, crash, lighting, noise, emission, etc.

Hi BackseatDriver,

I seem to have shot myself in the foot here

Jokes apart, it would be really difficult to describe each and every regulation, but I take your point and will try and put something in layman terms.

In the meanwhile, the following links would give you a more clearer understanding of the test procedures:

Motor Vehicle Rules in India.

This is the regulatory framework of applicable requirements for all vehicles.

https://www.araiindia.com/downloads.aspx?catg=pub

This is the list of standards that the CMVR refers to (Only AIS documents, not IS documents, mind you)

This should be a good read just to understand what is applicable

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

Unrelated:-

One thing that has always had me worried is the lack of standardisation in HCV bodies. Just look at the number of custom built bodies for both trucks and buses. There is absolutely no awareness of safety (visibility, for example) requirements when HCV bodies are built in the disorganised sector. (Unorganised / SSIs does not adequately phrase it). Any steps to tackle this? How will the rules (if any proposal exists) allow the vehicle owners to still customise (this is the international practise) the bodies?

If you refer to the first link, you will see Rule 124 (35, 36) applies to some of the above you mention. There is already a bus build code (in line with the EC Bus and Coach Directive, 2001/85/EC).

The problem is due to sheer number vehicles existing prior to these rules makes one think that nothing is changing, but as you can see from the applicable standards, there is a mandatory requirement.

There are steps also towards establishing code for commercial vehicle cabs. I do not have the details on it as I have since not been in touch with the nitty gritties in the CMVR type approval.

Gandhar.

Originally Posted by bblost

@Gansbab: I have always wanted to ask this question. Its with regard to the black dot that is stuck on head lights. Some state governments enforce the rule. Some don't.

Do modern cars need this stupid sticker.

I am asking this because in most cars, one can easily see that the thrown of the left light is longer than the length of the right light in Hi beam.

Hi BBlost,

I am afraid, I am not aware of this black sticker dot you mention. I definitely have seen some yellow sticker bars covering the right-side of the right headlight, which apparently avoid glare in the eyes of oncoming traffic.

The point here is the education about the use of appropriate beam. One has to inculcate the habit to dip the beam when passing a vehicle. When the light is approved (tested) for oncoming dazzle avoidance, it is tested in low beam. But uneducated used of high beam throws those efforts out of the box.

I assume these stickers are enforced by local government organisations assuming that the *** would never dip his beam, whatever happens.

But as far as ARAI tests are considered, no such requirement of the black dot exists.

Gandhar.

[Viraat13]

Originally Posted by Gansbab

I agree that manufacturer's would want to give in more features as options, be it on the top end models of all vehicles. However, it's a catch 22 situation. No supply => no demand => no supply.

But at the same time if the option is there for the safety conscious consumer he will at least make use of the option. It's not like manufacturers CAN'T do it. It is done so often when a car that sells low numbers is only produced on order etc. (Eg Ford Fiesta S)

So the same way, when a particular variant of a car which as standard does not have safety features, accumulates sufficient numbers for production with those features, gets produced.

[Gansbab]

Originally Posted by amitwlele

+1 for this suggestion. Gansbab i think this should be done by you.

Hi Amit,

I will definitely try and put something together, but do refer the links I have posted in my earlier posts. Reading regulatory standards is not the most straightforward read, I admit. Normally they are 2 meanings out of it
But atleast that will give you a background about the tests and the requirements.

Originally Posted by amitwlele

I was going through this thread since afternoon and checking out the different posts. In some of the posts there were complaints that low end models do not have the option of ABS, Airbags etc. I am confused. Wouldn't having these options in low end models make them costly and then they would count as top end models???

Then your post about the role of ARAI was helpful in clearing the doubts. Would be following this thread for further updates.

Nice to know that you found this useful as there were lot of misconceptions about ARAI which hopefully will now be clarified.

With regards to the safety features in low end models, you are spot on. Adding up these safety features is not cheap. And again, as it would be important to highlight that although ABS is not mandatory, if fitted it needs to be tested so that it performs as expected. The testing cost is not high compared to the existing type approval costs anyway, but manufacturer's like to have least hassles.

But I agree that manufacturers need to atleast give us an option to have these added features, and it makes more sense to include then in top end versions rather than low end versions. I wouldn't like to have a vehicle fitted with ABS/Airbags with body coloured bumpers & Steel wheels.

On second thought, I wouldn't think of having a vehicle with BC bumpers and steel wheels anyways.

Gandhar.

Originally Posted by Viraat13

But at the same time if the option is there for the safety conscious consumer he will at least make use of the option. It's not like manufacturers CAN'T do it. It is done so often when a car that sells low numbers is only produced on order etc. (Eg Ford Fiesta S)

So the same way, when a particular variant of a car which as standard does not have safety features, accumulates sufficient numbers for production with those features, gets produced.

Hi Viraat,

I completely agree with you and manufacturers will definitely want to produce on order if more and more customers ask for it.

One suggestion is whenever you visit a car dealer ask them for a feedback form and put these opinions in writing. There are usually customer feedback departments (Lets make them work actually for a change) in most big companies who would definitely take note of this. Or whenever you are checking out the latest models on manufacturer's website, make sure you drop a comment that you would like to see whatever we are just discussing here..

I am sure if everyone on T-BHP do it, the manufacturers would start giving us what we want.

Gandhar.

[directinjection]

Originally Posted by Gansbab

This is the list of standards that the CMVR refers to (Only AIS documents, not IS documents, mind you)

What's the difference between the two?

Originally Posted by Gansbab

There is already a bus build code (in line with the EC Bus and Coach Directive, 2001/85/EC). The problem is due to sheer number vehicles existing prior to these rules makes one think that nothing is changing, but as you can see from the applicable standards, there is a mandatory requirement.

Are you sure it has come into force in India? There was a press report saying that its implementation has been postponed.

Originally Posted by Gansbab

There are steps also towards establishing code for commercial vehicle cabs. I do not have the details on it as I have since not been in touch with the nitty gritties in the CMVR type approval.

The code in question is called AIS-093 and can be downloaded from ARAI website. It covers not just truck cabs but also bodies and trailers. Here again, I think vested interest groups have kept its implementation indefinitely pending through successful lobbying.

Originally Posted by Gansbab

The point here is the education about the use of appropriate beam. One has to inculcate the habit to dip the beam when passing a vehicle. When the light is approved (tested) for oncoming dazzle avoidance, it is tested in low beam. But uneducated used of high beam throws those efforts out of the box.

I assume these stickers are enforced by local government organisations assuming that the *** would never dip his beam, whatever happens
But as far as ARAI tests are considered, no such requirement of the black dot exists.

Gandhar.

To deal with this problem, an automatic beam dipping device was invented way back in 1978. It was equipped with a light sensor and was fitted under the driver side headlight. As soon as an oncoming headlight beam fell on the sensor, the device caused an automatic switchover to low beam, in case the original setting was high beam. As soon as the oncoming vehicle would pass, auto switchover to high beam would occur again. Such a device should be made obligatory in India - an Indian solution to an Indian problem!

[selfdrive]

Originally Posted by directinjection

To deal with this problem, an automatic beam dipping device was invented way back in 1978. It was equipped with a light sensor and was fitted under the driver side headlight. As soon as an oncoming headlight beam fell on the sensor, the device caused an automatic switchover to low beam, in case the original setting was high beam. As soon as the oncoming vehicle would pass, auto switchover to high beam would occur again. Such a device should be made obligatory in India - an Indian solution to an Indian problem!

I would be willing to pay for a device in my car that would cause an automatic switchover to low beam in oncoming cars!
Jokes apart, this should be made mandatory. If not perhaps a special type of film should be made that reduces the impact of high beam from oncoming cars. I am not sure if something like this already exists, but it would be a boon
There have been multiple occasions when I have been temporarily blinded by high beam from oncoming cars, and I have been plain fortunate that nothing serious has happened.

[Gansbab]

Originally Posted by directinjection

What's the difference between the two?

IS standards were in place before the AIS committee was formulated. All new test standard development has been under the AIS. Some old IS standards do exist however (Pass by Noise, etc.) Unfortunately, they are not available free in public domain. However, if you want, you can access them by visiting ARAI library (at a cost, AFAIK)

Originally Posted by directinjection

Are you sure it has come into force in India? There was a press report saying that its implementation has been postponed.

As I said, I am not actively involved with the Indian Homologation since 2005, so I cannot definitively comment on this.

Originally Posted by directinjection

The code in question is called AIS-093 and can be downloaded from ARAI website. It covers not just truck cabs but also bodies and trailers. Here again, I think vested interest groups have kept its implementation indefinitely pending through successful lobbying.

You may be correct on this one. Same answer as previous one.

Originally Posted by directinjection

To deal with this problem, an automatic beam dipping device was invented way back in 1978. It was equipped with a light sensor and was fitted under the driver side headlight. As soon as an oncoming headlight beam fell on the sensor, the device caused an automatic switchover to low beam, in case the original setting was high beam. As soon as the oncoming vehicle would pass, auto switchover to high beam would occur again. Such a device should be made obligatory in India - an Indian solution to an Indian problem!

The idea is correct. But the problem lies whether the technology is able to perform under all operating conditions. Innumerable studies have gone through to find how it can be implemented, but the problem was that the activation of the beam switchover was not able to clearly distinguish between a passing vehicle and a stationery object (tree, lamp-post, etc). We have to be careful when mandating any new requirement about its detrimental effect in case it malfuntions as the results could be counter-productive. If an accident occurs due to incorrect dipping of the device, then no one would spare to blame the Govt. for implementing it.

The committees have to be very careful of the negative effects of any new requirement they intend to mandate.

To incorporate an intelligent device would also hike up the vehicle cost and that would not be ideal in an already cost concious market. Retrospective fitment would be all the more difficult and costly.

Hence the best and the cost-effective way is awareness about the correct use of beams whilst driving.

Gandhar.

Originally Posted by selfdrive

I would be willing to pay for a device in my car that would cause an automatic switchover to low beam in oncoming cars!
Jokes apart, this should be made mandatory. If not perhaps a special type of film should be made that reduces the impact of high beam from oncoming cars. I am not sure if something like this already exists, but it would be a boon
There have been multiple occasions when I have been temporarily blinded by high beam from oncoming cars, and I have been plain fortunate that nothing serious has happened.

You are correct. When I drove in India the last time, an LCV with high beam was passing by, I was so annoyed by the high beam glare, that I drove straight towards the LCV blocking his way, getting out of the car and politely (that was difficult) explaining that because you were on high beam, I cannot see the road ahead. On hindsight, I may not do that again as if the LCV driver was under influence of alcohol, he would have just carried over me

On the use of such a film, unfortunately, the purpose of the high beam is to be able to see the road far ahead clearly. If a film is used, this very objective of the high beam goes out of the window.

Another point is the incorrect setting of the beam, in general. How many times have we asked the service engineer to check and adjust the beam setting, if necessary, when we get our car serviced? Agreed, that should be done by the dealer anyways, but still. On the contrary, I have been told that some idiots purposely want their beams directed to cause glare and also request them to be so..

I strongly believe awareness is the key and technology should not be used to cover up acts of common sense.

Gandhar.

[mmxylorider]

Gandhar - Can ARAI play any role in recommending what manufacturers should be providing as options (safety or safety associated features) on all trim levels?

Background to this thought is the fact that in most cases a buyer would have to purchase the highest trim to get ABS/Air bags. But he might not want power windows or MID or in-dash ICE.

[directinjection]

Originally Posted by Gansbab

Another point is the incorrect setting of the beam, in general. How many times have we asked the service engineer to check and adjust the beam setting, if necessary, when we get our car serviced? Agreed, that should be done by the dealer anyways, but still. On the contrary, I have been told that some idiots purposely want their beams directed to cause glare and also request them to be so..

In my student days (which was a long-long time back), the Bajaj service centre where I used to take my motorbike for service had circles marked on a wall which were used to set headlight beams - a very simple solution to avoid the glare problem. There was a separate circle for each model since their heights would vary. I haven't seen that concept in operation in any of the car service stations that I have visted over the last decade and a half, including the so-called ISO-certifed ones, although cars have far more powerful beams. We really need to have compulsory standards for service stations too, with penalties/challans for every reported/observed breach.

[pranavt]

I have a good one. How can you get a custom-made car registered, if there is such a provision?