[AutoNoob]

Originally Posted by Sherlocked

Good initiative but IMO ABS should also have been made mandatory.

Originally Posted by landcruiser123

how come ABS isn't compulsory?

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

I think that they should make ABS absolutely mandatory in India.

Originally Posted by Arjun Reddy

ABS mandatory would have made it better.

Originally Posted by chncar

at a minimum the following should be required:
ABS

Originally Posted by Tanmay K

In June it was reported that ABS will be mandatory too (by Oct 2018).

The Government has already released draft notification on 29.Aug.2016 stating :

The motor vehicles of category M1 and M2 shall be fitted with Anti-lock braking systems on and after 1st October 2017, in the case of new models and 1st April 2018, in the case of all models. The Anti-lock braking systems shall be as per the requirements specified in IS: 15986:2015, as amended from time to time.

M1 Category : Vehicles used for the carriage of passengers and comprising not more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat. (Passenger car)
M2 Category : Vehicles used for the carriage of passengers, comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat, and having a maximum mass not exceeding 5 tonnes. (Bus)

And what I have heard from my friends in the industry, Government is playing hard-ball to implement this without any relaxation in timeline. Primary reason being almost all vehicles have their top or export variants equipped with ABS, so there is minimal technical challenge. Only concern is on component supply side. But what I have heard, the big suppliers like BOSCH, Continental have indicated that they can manage the necessary ramp-up to meet these timelines.

[sgiitk]

Excellent news. I hope the Tanaka problem will be history by then. I have not heard stories of any other manufacturer, so I guess the problem was specific to them. Are others using some different chemicals?

[Turbohead]

I think ABS is more important than airbags! Prevention is always better than cure.

And with airbags becoming standard, I expect the death rates to go higher. This is because without wearing seatbelts, airbags can kill you, which defeats the primary purpose.
In short, wearing seatbelts should be strictly enforced before airbags become standard.

[Dry Ice]

Originally Posted by Turbohead

I think ABS is more important than airbags! Prevention is always better than cure.

And with airbags becoming standard, I expect the death rates to go higher. This is because without wearing seatbelts, airbags can kill you, which defeats the primary purpose.
In short, wearing seatbelts should be strictly enforced before airbags become standard.

I think most airbag systems take it into consideration. Airbags don't work if you aren't belted up, or do they?

[Turbohead]

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

I think most airbag systems take it into consideration. Airbags don't work if you aren't belted up, or do they?

Correct! Most systems don't work if you don't wear your seatbelt. Manufacturers can actually install alarms for seatbelts too. But I've seen a lot of people buckle the seatbelt without actually wearing them. That's a major concern IMO.

[invidious]

Originally Posted by Turbohead

I think ABS is more important than airbags! Prevention is always better than cure.

And with airbags becoming standard, I expect the death rates to go higher. This is because without wearing seatbelts, airbags can kill you, which defeats the primary purpose.
In short, wearing seatbelts should be strictly enforced before airbags become standard.

The force at which an airbag deploys is different in USA and Europe. The US airbags deploy more forcefully as the airbags are tested on unbelted crash dummies while the European airbags are tested on belted crash dummies. Thus Euro airbags are smaller too.

I don't know which standard is followed by car manufacturers in India or if it is left to at the discretion of the manufacturer.

Independent Sources to verify info above -

http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/adv...s-information/

http://wikicars.org/en/Airbag

http://rightcar.govt.nz/airbags.html

https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-js...7/1/PUB286.pdf

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Turbohead

... ... ... I expect the death rates to go higher. This is because without wearing seatbelts, airbags can kill you ... ... ..

Front-seat passenger-lap children.

Think about it!

[Street_Legal]

Really applaud the move to make airbags mandatory. Once regulation is in place many unaware buyers won't ignore airbags for few pennies (considering your life is at stake during an accident).

However, with the current trend of cost cutting amongst automobile competitors, I really feel lower segment car (including compact sedans) are compromising greatly on structural rigidity. Personally I would prefer a structural sound car before airbags (that doesn't mean I would ignore it).

[maverickmano]

Originally Posted by nishsingh

Just out of curiosity, from October 2017, is it mandatory for the car manufacturers to offer dual front airbags, or will they get away with offering just one?

I am asking this because I have a good mind to buy the Kwid AMT, but it currently offers just one airbag (the driver side airbag). I can put off my purchase until October if it means that I can get the two front airbags.

As per govt notification earlier, all new vehicles needs comply with BNVSAP by Oct 2017 and all existing vehicles by Oct 2018.

[guptad42]

1. The crash tests at 64kmps and side crash tests at 50kmps are at very low speeds. The govt should considered a graded system like the energy efficiency norms. These low speed tests can be considered minimum enough to sell the car in 2017. But, allow manufacturers to optionally test for much higher speeds going up to 140kmph at least given our new highways. And give the cars that pass higher ratings.

It gives the public easy to understand information about cars that are safer. This will also allow the industry to mature as govt raises the mandatory safety crash test levels gradually in later years.

2. The features being made mandatory should also take into account accident data analysis. If reasons like skidding on slippery roads, reversing on to small children, sudden left/right lane changes leading to collisions, not being able to see obstacles in the dark etc are major reasons, the the corresponding technology should make it to the mandatory list - ABS, reversing sensors, left/right lane collision warnings, front collision detection and emergency braking etc.

We also need a simple graphical way to convey safety ratings and additional safety features in a car to the average consumer. Such a one page disclosure format can be designed by an open competition for anyone to submit their suggested visualization online.

3. The usual reason stated against adding safety tech is cost. But this is more true in the beginning. Once you add the basic capability of a higher capacity ECU to read and act on more sensors, the incremental cost of adding more safety tech drops very quickly. Sometimes, it is just software.

Besides, once you have cars being compared and sold on safety features, it will become a bragging right just like any other gadgetry. Social media campaigns by car makers can also drive this.

[aryasanyal]

Originally Posted by guptad42

1. The crash tests at 64kmps and side crash tests at 50kmps are at very low speeds. The govt should considered a graded system like the energy efficiency norms. These low speed tests can be considered minimum enough to sell the car in 2017. But, allow manufacturers to optionally test for much higher speeds going up to 140kmph at least given our new highways. And give the cars that pass higher ratings.

Euro NCAP tests frontal and side barrier crash at 50kmph. And offset deformable barrier at 64kmph.
I guess proposals are inline with Euro NCAP (at least for speed of crash tests), and that is a good start.

http://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-s...rigid-barrier/

[alphadog]

A laudable and much needed move by the government. With the rising number of accidents and road deaths, a four pronged approach is needed.
As I see it, these are

1. Manufacturers offering safer cars and certain basic mandatory safety features - ABS and airbags.
2. The road infrastructure and planning and quality has to improve ( things like dividers/medians, removal of unscientific humps, pot-holes and craters.)
3. Education of drivers/ two wheeler users/ pedestrians and stricter licensing norms.
4. Strict enforcement and penalties (this is being taken care of with the new Road safety bill I guess).

Only if all of these are done, will the situation improve. But this is a very good start nevertheless.

[naikameya]

Very good move.

Why not introduce tax exemptions (not complete) on cars with more safety features? These features can be predefined just to avoid car manufacturers introducing frivolous features to lower price.

This will definitely speed up manufacturers introducing more safety features before the govt. deadlines.

So if there is deadline that is an year away introducing the feature can earn you exemptions. Post the deadline date there is no exemptions but manufacturer can chase the next safety feature.

This might increase adoption with the buyers as well, slowly making the unsafe cars irrelevant.

[Kamran Mohsin]

Originally Posted by Turbohead

I think ABS is more important than airbags! Prevention is always better than cure.

And with airbags becoming standard, I expect the death rates to go higher. This is because without wearing seatbelts, airbags can kill you, which defeats the primary purpose.
In short, wearing seatbelts should be strictly enforced before airbags become standard.

Seat belts, air bags and head restraints go hand in hand so I agree. As we all know when a head on takes place, the body is thrown in front, the seat belts restrain that force and keep the occupant in the seat, the air bags further reduce that motion and cushion that forward fling of the body from waist up and absorb all the force by deflating almost upon impact, thereafter the body is thrown back wards albeit with lesser force and by now the seat belts have released all the inertia as well, the head restraints cushion the head preventing the neck to break on the return fling in what is called a neck whiplash. Just having air bags won't do any good. Enforce seat belts? Sure. But if we have to enforce this, do we really deserve safer cars then? Safety starts with us.

[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by torque!!

Airbags, reverse sensors and seat belt warnings are absolutely welcome. But I am a bit concerned about the constant beeping above 100 kmph. I think this will cause more driver irritation and create more problems than what it tries to address. The speed limits are set a bit too low. Alert at 100, a beep every few minutes at 120 and constant beeping at 140 is perhaps more in-line with today’s bigger cars and highways.

Speed limit of 100 kmph is already a little high on most Indian roads until we can ensure proper entry and exits, no pedestrians or animals wandering around, no wrong side driving and no random stopping of vehicles. Of course, there are some highways in less populated areas where this might not apply but I never feel confident driving over 90 kmph on any road in India except for perhaps a very brief spur of 100 on a proper expressway.

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

I think most airbag systems take it into consideration. Airbags don't work if you aren't belted up, or do they?

Incorrect. Airbags deploy regardless of whether seatbelts are worn or not. Only some vehicles have a sensor for front passenger airbag where it won't deploy if no passenger is detected.

Originally Posted by Turbohead

Correct! Most systems don't work if you don't wear your seatbelt. Manufacturers can actually install alarms for seatbelts too. But I've seen a lot of people buckle the seatbelt without actually wearing them. That's a major concern IMO.

Incorrect on the first point. Airbags work regardless of whether seatbelts are worn. Of course it is much better to be belted to ensure one gets proper protection from the airbags.

Originally Posted by guptad42

1. The crash tests at 64kmps and side crash tests at 50kmps are at very low speeds. The govt should considered a graded system like the energy efficiency norms. These low speed tests can be considered minimum enough to sell the car in 2017. But, allow manufacturers to optionally test for much higher speeds going up to 140kmph at least given our new highways. And give the cars that pass higher ratings.

No car in the world would pass a crash test at 140 kmph. Increasing the threshold by even 10 kmph increases the stress on the vehicle enormously. It is impossible to design a vehicle that can protect its occupants in a 140 kmph crash using currently available mass production technology. Fortunately most crashes occur at slower speeds. One might be travelling at 140 kmph but almost always one brakes and slows down to to a lesser speed at the point of impact. When you read stories of vehicles rear ending a stationary truck with all occupants dead and the vehicle left in a mangled heap, those are the crashes where the speed might have been over 100 kmph and one can see that the vehicle was unable to protect its occupants. Most well made modern cars are designed to provide good protection up to 64 kmph, some injuries from 64 to 80 kmph and then the risk of severe injury thereafter. Of course there are so many factors at play and it is possible that a person gets injured at a slower speed and comes out safe at a slightly higher one but it is nearly impossible to have a crash at a speed above 100 kmph and come out of it without any injury for a front seat passenger.

Here is an article explaining this:

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1...top-rated-cars