The automotive industry worldwide lets out a collective groan every time its members are pulled up for lax safety standards in their cars. Safety is a big selling point today, with manufacturers touting their cars’ achievement when the model has been awarded a five-star rating.
Yet, a safety standard review or a crash test result ruffles the deceptive calm of the industry.
The automobile industry in India has gotten away lightly, with literally no stringent safety standards imposed on car makers. Much of the progress towards improved safety has been driven by the influx of global models that have inherent safety standards built into them, and a few others have made it due to the suo motu choices of manufacturers. Yes, increased awareness has led to buyer preference for higher safety features, but not by much and definitely not yet in the mass market, small car category.
The Global NCAP (New Car Assessment Programme) has rated Indian cars for the past two years and its findings have been a revelation, though on expected lines for industry observers.
The findings confirm the existing suspicion that many of the cars plying on Indian roads do not offer even the basic levels of safety. Most of the cars tested don’t offer acceptable structural integrity to ensure basic occupant safety in the event of a collision.
Collision course
For a heavily self-regulated industry that has gone global, this is just such a poor reflection of the importance given to the buyers in what is fast becoming the world’s third largest car market. It is an embarrassment for the manufacturers, and almost all of them have clammed up, choosing not to make official comments about the results. But they have fed the gossip mills with conspiracy theories about why Global NCAP is maligning the Indian auto industry.
The theories range from how the speeds at which the front offset collision test is conducted by GNCAP, is too fast for the Indian driving cycle to how the safety programme is over-stepping its role, given that all the cars tested are meeting the Indian safety standards and how this is purportedly a frontal organisation for safety equipment manufacturers who are lobbying for more business in India.
The claim that the market realities in India will make cars unaffordable and uncompetitive if they are loaded with all the safety features needed for a five star rating, is unceasingly put forth as an argument as well.
But very few are talking about how manufacturers are fundamentally violating the rights of their customers by not communicating the safety levels provided by their cars. Many of these are four wheelers that have been developed specially for India, but some of them are global models. The ideal would be to offer the same level of safety in their cars as is offered in other advanced markets. But, in the absence of this ideal, manufacturers have the obligation to provide product information that enables buyers to make an informed choice.
We have green ratings for electrical appliances, so customers can choose the right trade off between the price of the appliance and its power consumption. In the mature markets of the world, the safety rating of the car is a key metric that affects the purchase decision. Cars rated lower than 5-stars are also bought, but by customers who are aware.
Are quads cars?
However, thanks to vocal advocates of four-wheeled personal mobility for all, there is a much higher awareness about the possibilities of upgrading to what are touted to be safer options for people to be commuting in, than two-wheelers — a vehicle that looks like a car, but has none of the safety features that one needs to protect its occupants. Like the other conspiracy theorists, manufacturers making or proposing to manufacture these kinds of vehicles would like us to believe that they are a safer bet to carry your entire family in, than a crowded two-wheeler.
Yes, it offers a roof over the heads of the occupants and puts a body structure around them, increasing their chances of survival, but only in comparison with the two-wheeler. The trouble, though, is that these kinds of vehicles (call them quadricycles or by any other name) hold the potential of becoming wreaking machines that many of today’s cars are, when they are involved in accidents with pedestrians and two wheelers. So, these vehicles will only be moving one portion of one segment of road users to another, and that too after giving their occupants a false sense of safety.
A proliferation of these ultra low cost models will only increase road fatalities.
Noble intent
The numbers are just appalling and every year, tell us a story of neglect. Last year, for example, official statistics said that nearly 1.5 lakh people died on Indian roads, and a majority of them were pedestrians and other road users. Without getting into the issue of whose fault it is, there is a moral and logical responsibility on the part of all the constituents involved in using roads, to contribute to a reduction in road fatalities.
So, instead of projecting their proposed manufacture of an ultra low cost vehicle as one with the noble intent of saving lives, may be these companies should get down to the business of really saving lives by helping improve user compliance and creating a better infrastructure for pedestrians.
I can almost hear all of them joining in a chorus, claiming: “But that is the job of the government”. As we all already know, in India, it is futile to wait for the government or the local bodies to come up with solutions quickly. Worse, there is no guarantee that the governments of all states will think alike and create similarly effective solutions.
The other point about cars versus the rest is that cars are not elitist anymore. By making cars that are expensive or relatively unaffordable because they are loaded with safety tech, we will not be creating a clique of elitist road users, but actually be creating an ecosystem of safety for all road users.
With the pathetic levels of monitoring on our roads, it will be intrinsically safer to have fewer four-wheeled vehicles on them.
In the meanwhile, other road users and commuters should seek better and safer public transportation systems. In a poor regulatory environment, it is safer to restrict access to personal mobility options that can potentially be hazardous to other road users.
It is gratifying to know that the government is working on setting up our own automobile safety standards. May be it should start by defining what can be called a ‘car’.