[Mohitkumaar]

Voted Yes

I specifically purchased 2016 Tata Nano XTA for driving within 50km radius of my home in Delhi.

It is meant to replace my TVS NTORQ which is giving me pain in wrist and lower back.

I drive and treat NANO as a scooter with 4 wheels and air conditioning.

Just for fun sake I did do 2 interstate trips in it last year.

[locusjag]

I've forbidden my wife from carting around our 5 year old daughter on our scooter; my daughter would stand in the front of the scooter and she could easily suffer facial damage if my wife brakes hard. Worse yet, untold damage can be sustained by them both if there's a slip and fall or if a bigger vehicle hits them. Our used beater A Star AT is reserved for their use in the city for school or shopping trips. It's way safer than the scooter for sure.

I think I'll keep swapping my beater car with unrated cars in the future. It allows for a great safety proposition in the city at a minimal cost.

[sunnysideup_]

Yes safety should be a right, and yes safety should be well demanded by us from manufacturers. But you have to consider that the A and B segments of cars in India are priced so much lower than cars in other countries. The prime rationale for this is our need to empower a vast majority of the population with the ability to transport themselves and their families. Owning a car is still exceptionally aspirational for a vast majority, and lowering the entry point is a result of that. One of the collateral damages of this is quality, and primarily safety.

If you have the budget, and the choice, go for it, nobody is going to stop you. This poll is about your choice and your choice only. I see so many people attacking each other for their personal choices. Do we not take Ubers and Olas to go around? Do we not go in autos?

[BecoMagicSenna]

Yes. In fact have always used the Wagon-R for city 'travails' and the Skoda for Highway runs. Not that I haven't done highway runs in my Japanese hatches. On the contrary, have enjoyed munching highway miles as an awestruck kid with my petrol head uncle in his Omni - arguably the most dangerous car in our country, ever!

Did my first ever long trips in my super relaible first car - the Alto. Won't ever forget how I filled 'Speed' petrol in my Wagon-R on a family trip to Pondicherry and my relative's Corolla couldn't just keep up.

But thinking of those memories today, I resemble a shocked Samuel L Jackson - eyes popped out and all.

Just how a fish doesn't know the water it's in.

It's so different today, that I find the Wagon-R dangerous even on certain city sections. For instance, waiting to take a right turn at the Godrej junction while the rest of the Eastern Express Highway is open is super scary in the Wagon-R. It wobbles nervously even when an auto zooms past. But it comes in handy for those local shopping sprees - just like an advanced scooter if I may!

The dialogues around 'Saftey' and 'Crash Test Ratings' have intensified so much in the last few years. And rightly so, for most parts at least.

In all honesty though, I still feel fortunate to have the option of taking an 'unsafe' car within comparatively safer city environs if I wished. Because, I feel it's anyday safer than 2 wheelers (especially gearless scooters), as most still don't have ABS as standard. I vehemently believe, ABS are much more important for 2 wheelers than cars - in fact it has to be mandatory for everyone.

[PVS]

Voted Yes. I do not have multiple cars in my garage, I just have a 2012 Wagon R VXi as my city ride plus the occasional highway drive. Of course, if and when I choose to upgrade, I will go in for a safer ride.

[shashi792]

Absolutely No.

I would go via the pre-owned route if I cannot get hold of a new (safe) car. I mean, I would buy a used Polo for 4/5L than buy an S-Presso for the same money.

I have always voted for a safe-car whenever possible. I have always advised the same to my peers. Go safe, even if it's a stretch on your budget. Else, there is always a pre-owned route.

On a lighter note: It's like saying, I don't mind a Truck/Bus crashing into me within the city limits, but I'm scared if it happens on a highway.

[HooghlyBoy]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Voted Yes.
To start with a car is a safe cocoon. Period. A car with the occupants wearing their seat belts, being driven at a moderate speed and with brakes in good order is already addressing 3/4ths of our extreme case safety needs. If the car has ABS make that 5/6ths. All the modern technology around crumple zones, safe structures, airbags, automatic safety braking etc are addressing, IMHO, the final 1/6th of safety. The best safety is to not get into a situation in the first place. Of course there is that one in a lakh chance that despite all your safe driving some moron in India will crash into you head-on. Yes that can happen. So can we die in a 5-star rated car crash!

Such Kind Words and pragmatic too...I drove 90000Kms with a Zen Estilo (No ABS/Airbags/ TC/ESP-Only Front Disc Brakes and a Mata ki Chunri hanging from IRVM) and I have taken Safe Driving Classes from experts in past and benefited immensely.

IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A DRIVER TO BE CAUTIOUS BEHIND THE STEERING WHEEL. REST ALL THINGS WILL FALL IN PLACE WITH GOD'S GRACE !!!

[viper_711]

Voted: No
I think it boils down to awareness and affordability.
Most threads voting 'yes' speak of the alternate being a two wheeler and hence their choice. Many have cited affordability as a criteria and this does not mean they are not aware. This is understandable.
'City' use can throw up many situations where the speeds are around 80kmph (Can safely say that for BLR) So unless you have multiple cars in your garage, a single low rated car always has a higher risk.

[haria]

Voted Yes.

Originally Posted by GTO

An unrated economy hatchback is still 50 times safer than a motorcycle.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Voted Yes.

To start with a car is a safe cocoon. Period. A car with the occupants wearing their seat belts, being driven at a moderate speed and with brakes in good order is already addressing 3/4ths of our extreme case safety needs.

Absolutely true!


In an ideal world, all cars, vehicles/gizmos will have the HIGHEST safety rating, etc.

It goes without saying that the more safety features you add and make the car more stronger, it is going to cost more.

In reality, there are different categories of customers with various financial capacity and all will not be able to afford the more expensive cars.

Also any car (or even an autorickshaw) is definitely safer than a 2 wheeler - especially in the pot hole filled roads of our country.

The problem starts creeping in when these "unsafe" cars are pushed beyond their safety levels. (Eg: driving in the highway @ triple digit speeds, etc)

If along with NCAP and all the related things, they also come out with a guideline on the max. permitted speed, then many things will get sorted out automatically. For instance, say take a maruti-800 - if at the engine level itself the speed is limited to say - 60 or 80km/h (No option should be provided for after market devices to regulate this), chances of driving these cars in highway comes down drastically. A person buying this will do it consciously knowing that it cannot go beyond its limits. So either he will cough up more money to go for a more safer variant OR he will be forced to drive at a more saner and safer limits. (for instance, you don't see too many autorickshaws in the highway.. nor do you see TVS-50 mopeds..)
Since the car is physically limited this way, maybe the manufacturing costs also will be lower and they can throw in other useful features which a common man can use.

This way, it is a win-win for all - the highways will have more of safer cars,
the price barrier for buying a car will be lower and more people can afford to buy a car rather than riding a bike with 2 adults and 2 kids (many 2 wheelers do this!).

one possible con is that there will be more cars on the road - replacing 2 wheelers, which will increase the traffic congestion.

[AKSarkar1]

Great Thread!

Voted- No. While I can't speak about any other city apart from Mumbai, I definitely wouldn't use a poorly rated car in terms of safety on Mumbai roads. Most of my daily commute is in slow-moving or standstill traffic (10-15 km/h) but there are also highway sections that I need to take including the sea link.

While Mumbai traffic discipline has definitely improved over the past couple of years IMHO, the overall situation still isn't too impressive. Us having somewhat better roads also means on certain stretches like the WEH we can hit triple-digit speeds easily (although I avoid it). Therefore I feel if one is living in a large city like Mumbai, safety becomes a top priority while driving. The upcoming coastal road projects too aim to be a minimum of 80 Km/h zones and in the interest of future travels, I would stick to a safer car as a city driver! The definition of the city car is soon to change because the city itself is changing!

[Lowflyer23]

Originally Posted by Marshall

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.

Exactly! Why buy an unsafe car when a safe one is similarly priced and in some cases, even cheaper? Someone here said I drive my unsafe car very "safely" outside city limits ,that doesn't mean the structure of the car would change somehow, accidents can't be avoided even if you are a safe driver, some idiot might crash into your car from nowhere. Worse still, a car from the opposite lane could jump off the divider and crash into yours in a split second. No human I believe has the responses and psychomotor skills to avoid a mishap so fast. Even if you are such a capable shaktiman, there is no car which can match your superpowers.

Dear members, I sincerely don't mean offence to anybody, but it's high time we as buyers wake up. Those who bought unsafe cars without knowing the ratings or before the release of crash test scores can't do much now, but as a buyer we can still make a better choice and put our money towards safety. So that the manufacturers providing tins without crumple zones and happily laughing on the way to the bank sit up and take notice.

Edit 1: People don't realise that city driving is not always about bumper to bumper traffic, many routes within the city allow you to touch 60-70 km/h easily. In such case, the slow speed argument is not valid, remember the GNCAP crash tests cars at the speed of a relatively modest 64 km/h and some cars have crumpled like anything in those tests.

Edit 2: Please don't bring in the 2 wheeler versus 4 wheeler safety discussion and try to save shameless manufacturers here. Having budget constraints is a totally different affair then having a budget for safe car and being blind. Some BHPians mentioned that in terms of safety 4 wheeler > 2 wheeler > Pedestrian which is pretty obvious but it doesn't mean tomorrow people would be born with attached airbags and ESP in their feet. Try to put logical and to the point arguments please. Also, above a budget of 4 Lacs for a new car, everyone can get a set of safe wheels.

[400notout]

I think this poll is asking the wrong question. Most of the cars on road in India are unrated. Then there are few who have managed good ratings. Then there are poorly rated cars. I would say this question is applicable only if all cars went through a standard rating process. As of now its a case of bigger vs smaller.

So by that logic;

Pedestrian < cyclist < motor cyclist < LMV < HMV < military tank etc.

Common sense, alertness and safe driving skills will go a long way in reducing accidents. All but for some unfortunate event.

On a personal note;

Presently i drive a 2006 Honda City. It doesn't have Airbags and ABS. And I've driven it for 50k kms with quite a few cross country drives. I use it for my office commute of 80kms daily. The car is old and I always contemplated replacing it with a newer car. But the only car I can afford right now is the abominable Spresso. If it did score 4/5 star GNCAP I would still have considered it but alas the 0 rating sealed the deal.

And I'm sure the 150k old City will treat me well for the next 5 years than the Spresso ever will.

If I had twice the budget I would consider the Magnite/Kiger/Rapid or Altroz if an auto was available.

So though I drive an unrated car presently, I wouldn't change it to a poorly rated car. Again the other side of 15 lakhs only the Marazzo and Thar have decent ratings. Rest are unrated. If I had the money, I would have loved to buy the Safari. Would I be safe in an unrated Safari over a 5* Altroz? That's another discussion in itself.

So my interpretation of the question is
Would you buy a poorly rated car for City use?"
For which my answer would be No.

[Manoj Barai]

Vote Yes. I drive a 6+ year old Toyota Etios in Bangalore and have used it on multiple highway drives as well. I am in complete agreement with the statement made here that the nut behind the wheel is the most important safety feature in a car. The only accidents I have had on the roads are two wheeler riders and / or car drivers busy on their mobile phones who have rammed into me from behind so far. I prefer to be a slow sensible and safe driver both in city and on the highways. The motto for me to reach my destination is better late than never.

[Cuatro]

Voted 'No'. There's no excuse for opting an unrated/unsafe car. India is at a maturity stage in Car offerings where players like Tata and Mahindra have started to create benchmarks in safety. There is no way we should accept an unsafe car whether it is from an Indian or foreign brand.

Also, a comparison of cars with two wheelers is unwarranted. Saying, a poorly built car is safer than a two wheeler somehow doesn't make sense.

[Nexusios1521]

Voted for NO.

There are plenty of examples in the road accidents thread of how things can unexpectedly go wrong, even within the confines of cities. While no car is cent percent safe, I would hate to be in a poorly rated car if such events occur.