Topic: India May Have The Most Dangerous Cars In The World

[mmret]

The safety designations aren't arbitrary, they are based on the statistical likelihood of serious injury or death.

The levels are arbitrary. Would you be satisfied if you asked me about the weather and all I could respond with was cold, meh, or hot? Who defines what is what? Who decides what is enough?

IMO (and it will never happen) crash test results should be expressed in absolute terms (ie: X cm of deflection, etc.). Putting "stars" into it is entirely arbitrary and the stars aren't even consistent from one generation of tests to another.

Star ratings work for movies, music, food, perhaps vacation destinations..... things that cannot really be numerically expressed. Crash tests results in all likelihood are already collected numerically, and then dumbed down in an arbitrary way for mass consumption.

Newspapers are written to be understood by people with 8th grade reading skills in NA and you're going to suggest telling people about car's structural integrity in engineering terms? How do you suppose that would work in India or China with even lower literacy rates?

And it's still not arbitrary. Most of these systems are some kind of calculated normal distribution based on accident models.

People in China and India who can afford cars are perfectly literate. In fact as per DKaz most of the people who can't are perfectly literate as well.

People understand well enough that for example less deflection is better. Its just a number, and to that other guy all you have to do is standardize the test that collects this number and the arbitrariness of the rating will disappear.  Its a different thing.

The star rating itself remains entirely arbitrary. It boggles my mind that you don't see this. You say its based on some statistical distribution of probability of injury or death. Well if so, and my car is rated 4 star, can you tell me how likely I am to die in a head on 30kmh crash with a concrete wall? Give me a percentage. Translate that star for me.

I mean, even if we ignore the fact that stars are awarded and taken away for the presence or absence of specific features like airbags and esp, why do we bother with the stupid stars at all? If it really is based on some probability distribution then why not just quote the mean of that distribution? Surely even the barely literate can understand a percentage.

And for the literate, a standard deviation too please.

[tenpenny]

Seriously?  We live in a society where people think the fuel economy rating is some sort of guarantee by the manufacturer, and you think they can handle deflection numbers in a meaningful way?




Sent from my Vic20 using Java Moose

[mmret]

Ok, we better convert L/100km into star ratings, ASAP. Every 5 or 6 years we'll reshuffle things.

I give my car 3 stars.

[KD]

auto rickshaws... there are cycle rickshaws and people pulled rickshaws too...

I was a rickshaw runner in Halifax during my university daze.  Great way to keep in shape while getting paid and even better for meeting women...

[SearhardBurger]

99.99% (and that's no exaggeration) of people in India don't give a rat's a$$ about safety ratings in vehicles.  None of the car commercials say anything about safety features, and that is including the imports like Hyundai, Honda, MB, BMW etc.  If one can afford one there, they will buy one.  If you buy one, you will use it even if you could get to your destination much quicker on the train, bus or a rickshaw.  Car-buying in India would seem bizarre to any one of the enthusiasts on this forum.

A car (like a lot of other things) is a status symbol in India.  Period.

Also just as an FYI, it is a rickshaw or rick for short.  No need for the 'auto' part.  If youre a cool kid, you always take a rick, never an auto-rickshaw. 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

People in China and India who can afford cars are perfectly literate. In fact as per DKaz most of the people who can't are perfectly literate as well.

People understand well enough that for example less deflection is better. Its just a number, and to that other guy all you have to do is standardize the test that collects this number and the arbitrariness of the rating will disappear.  Its a different thing.

The star rating itself remains entirely arbitrary. It boggles my mind that you don't see this. You say its based on some statistical distribution of probability of injury or death. Well if so, and my car is rated 4 star, can you tell me how likely I am to die in a head on 30kmh crash with a concrete wall? Give me a percentage. Translate that star for me.

I mean, even if we ignore the fact that stars are awarded and taken away for the presence or absence of specific features like airbags and esp, why do we bother with the stupid stars at all? If it really is based on some probability distribution then why not just quote the mean of that distribution? Surely even the barely literate can understand a percentage.

And for the literate, a standard deviation too please.

If you can read a newspaper, you're literate. That could mean you have a phd in molecular biology, or you could barely figure out what you're reading.

NCAP ratings, NHTSA, IIHS all have simple ratings systems for a reason, to allow the largest number of people to understand the relative safety of a car to it's peers.

Fuel economy is simple, you get two numbers, highway and city. How many numbers would it take to adequately tell me how a car behaves in a frontal collision, frontal offset collision, T-bone driver's side, T-bone, passenger's side, rollover, rear-end, and offset rear-end? Who would even bother to pay attention to them?

The west never cared about safety ratings either until they became widely used and they became burdened with the costs of the injuries and deaths autos cause.
China and India will eventually get to that point too, but right now they have bigger issues to deal with.

 

[PJ]

99.99% (and that's no exaggeration) of people in India don't give a rat's a$$ about safety ratings in vehicles.  None of the car commercials say anything about safety features, and that is including the imports like Hyundai, Honda, MB, BMW etc.  If one can afford one there, they will buy one.  If you buy one, you will use it even if you could get to your destination much quicker on the train, bus or a rickshaw.  Car-buying in India would seem bizarre to any one of the enthusiasts on this forum.

A car (like a lot of other things) is a status symbol in India.  Period.

Also just as an FYI, it is a rickshaw or rick for short.  No need for the 'auto' part.  If youre a cool kid, you always take a rick, never an auto-rickshaw. 

Thought they were commonly called Tuk Tuks.  Or is that in the past ?

[mixmanmash]

99.99% (and that's no exaggeration) of people in India don't give a rat's a$$ about safety ratings in vehicles.  None of the car commercials say anything about safety features, and that is including the imports like Hyundai, Honda, MB, BMW etc.  If one can afford one there, they will buy one.  If you buy one, you will use it even if you could get to your destination much quicker on the train, bus or a rickshaw.  Car-buying in India would seem bizarre to any one of the enthusiasts on this forum.

A car (like a lot of other things) is a status symbol in India.  Period.

Also just as an FYI, it is a rickshaw or rick for short.  No need for the 'auto' part.  If youre a cool kid, you always take a rick, never an auto-rickshaw. 

Thought they were commonly called Tuk Tuks.  Or is that in the past ?

Tuk Tuk is a name used in other countries.

[PJ]

99.99% (and that's no exaggeration) of people in India don't give a rat's a$$ about safety ratings in vehicles.  None of the car commercials say anything about safety features, and that is including the imports like Hyundai, Honda, MB, BMW etc.  If one can afford one there, they will buy one.  If you buy one, you will use it even if you could get to your destination much quicker on the train, bus or a rickshaw.  Car-buying in India would seem bizarre to any one of the enthusiasts on this forum.

A car (like a lot of other things) is a status symbol in India.  Period.

Also just as an FYI, it is a rickshaw or rick for short.  No need for the 'auto' part.  If youre a cool kid, you always take a rick, never an auto-rickshaw. 

Thought they were commonly called Tuk Tuks.  Or is that in the past ?

Tuk Tuk is a name used in other countries.

When my wife lived in Delhi over 30 years ago she says they called them Tuk Tuks.  Doesn't mean everyone did though.

[pi314]

In the South I've only heard them referred to as "autos" ... never tuk tuks or rickshaws actually

[johngenx]

Most of the world is not nearly as safety obsessed as we are.  They also don't sue everyone in sight when they hurt themselves.