News
GTO recently shared this with other enthusiasts.
Going for what might be the unpopular opinion here = I have voted yes, but purely for the city only.
Reasons:
I am lucky enough to own multiple cars, 2 of which are absolutely top-of-the-line when it comes to safety. But if I owned just a cheap hatchback, I would happily drive it in the city and rent a 5-star rated car for my road-trip holidays. There are so many well-priced self-drive rentals available now.
Must-Read Thread - Understanding the NCAP crash tests (NCAP tests: Things to keep in mind as a buyer / misconceptions about NCAP)
Here's what BHPian Marshall had to say on the matter:
Unsafe cars have no purpose to be on the road. If its a compromise, then why bother with any, Kuch bhi chalega must not be acceptable any more. The attitude must change. Incompetency must be weeded out.
Here's what BHPian Raghu_M had to say on the matter:
Absolutely agree with you on this. Seated in a Nano is much much safer than riding a 20+ lakh HD. Two wheels make you very vulnerable and losing balance is just one nick away while it can be a biker kissing that rear guard or a car accidently giving you a tail spin. Riding a motorcycle with ABS on Indian roads is way more dangerous than sitting in a 0 star safety rated car on any day!
Here's what BHPian zhopudey had to stay on the matter:
If you already own an "unsafe" car, then there's not much that can be done. You will continue to use it. The question should be - "would you buy an low gncap rated car for use inside the city?". I believe there already are threads about this. In my case, if my budget was only enough for an Alto/kwid or similar, then again there is no choice. If budget allows, say - a Tiago, then there's no reason to choose an unsafe car.
Here's what BHPian TrackDay had to say on the mater:
Voted No.
I guess such an option works only if one has multiple cars in their garage. Nowadays with reduced car numbers in ownership, Most cars in the garage have to be ready for highway as well as city duty & hence a safer car. This from my situation, and could vary from person to person and city to city.
Another factor is whether family member would agree to the reason of not taking out an unsafe car on a highway. Take for instance a garage made up of an unsafe and a safe car. While the safe car is away on some trip and some situation arises where the members back at home have to make a highway trip, the excuse that the unsafe car cant be used wont work out. It will just fall on deaf ears. Imagine telling relatives I couldn't turn up because I didn't have a safe car !
Due to the reasons above I would not go for an unsafe car as it cant be restricted to city use alone. In the end it will also have to serve highway trips.
Here's what BHPian SmartCat had to say on the matter:
I think so. After all, I have no problems driving around in my A-star AT (which does not have airbags). I actually love driving it in town.
Money saved in developing unsafe cars is usually transferred to the customer, either in terms of lower price point or better features or better engine/transmission combo etc. The profit from sale of such "unsafe" vehicles are NOT pocketed by the manufacturer - since he has an incentive to price the car right, to generate the required sales volumes. In car business, if there are no volumes, there are no profits.
So when we are buying an "unsafe" vehicle for city use, we are not getting a bad deal financially per se. We are just opting for lower crash safety in return for something else. So if I'm not using a city car for airport runs or on the ring road at 80 kmph, I think I will be fine with a new car with known low safety rating or unknown safety rating from a manufacturer who has a bad reputation in this department.
Read BHPian comments for more insights and information.