[sustran] Re: Passive Safety in The Automotive Sector of India

[Chris Bradshaw]

". . . passive safety features refer to systems
> designed to minimise injury to the occupants in the event of a crash . . . 
> "

This is an inadequate and unsustainable definition of passive safety, as it 
doesn't include any protection of those who are not occupants of the 
vehicles: pedestrians, cyclists, and bystanders.

Europe now recognizes this by requiring new models to have measures that 
reduce the seriousness of injuries to the unprotected human body.

If you don't widen the definition, the measures only encourage faster 
driving, with the net safety change for the occupants being nil, and for 
other road users being a significant decline.  It is inappropriate that 
governments get involved ensuring that new safety measures only protect 
those in a private vehicle, rather than all users of the public space that 
the vehicle is driving through.

Here is a study reported some years ago that reflects on this truth:
Ottawa Citizen December 12, 1994, p. A1: If Drivers Feel Safe, Caution's Not 
Their Bag

A Virginia study has found drivers whose cars are equipped with air bags 
take more risks because of the added protection. In fatal crashes involving 
an air-bag-equipped car and one with no air bag, the driver of the air 
bag-equipped car was responsible 73 percent of the time (compiled by Iain 
Hunter).