WINDSHIELD CRACK REPAIR SAFETY REPORT?

In this paper and study, Richard Campfield wrote for The Center for Auto Safety in May 2004 illustrates the importance of windshield safety and it's role as a critical piece of technology that needs to be preserved at all cost. This report also illustrates the impact windshield crack repair plays in protecting a windshield's manufactured safety for vehicle occupants. Windshield replacement today is putting drivers all over the United States at risk. This article will cover defects, repair, replacement, safety, crack prevention, current antitrust, and manufactures product liability. Ultra Bond to-date is the only windshield crack repair manufacturer that has perfected the windshield repair resin and windshield crack repair kits to preserve and protect windshield safety features.

Windshield Repair protects and preserves these safety standards by preventing a windshield replacement from altering the original factory installation.

The Motor Vehicle Act, Section 1397

AIRBAG PERFORMANCE

Airbag timing - As part of a vehicle's structure, the windshield is a critical determinant of proper airbag timing. In a crash, an improperly installed windshield may cause an airbag to deploy too early or too late. In either case, the safety of the occupants may be compromised.

Airbag retention - On impact the windshield acts as a brace to support the passenger side airbag. If the windshield separates, the airbag does not have a constrained space, and it is not effective in protecting the occupant.

OCCUPANT RETENTION

The windshield is intended to keep unrestrained occupants inside the vehicle. In a crash, an improperly installed windshield may fail to hold and detach from its frame, allowing any passengers in the vehicle to be ejected, which increases each occupant's chances for serious or even fatal injuries.

Special Report: 7 Out of 10 Windshields Are Installed Improperly. How You Can Beat the Odds

It’s a fact. 7 out of 10 windshields are installed improperly, according to industry statistics. The risk that drivers are taking which, they are not even aware of is astronomical. The risk could easily with that used car you bought, which has an improperly installed replacement windshield, or it could be that nice guy that installs windshields and lives in your neighborhood but who does not follow safe replacement standards. Make sure these 6 common mistakes are not made on your windshield installation. If you don’t, you could be risking your life in an accident.

The most common mistake is not using the proper urethane adhesive. Different vehicles require different types of adhesives and your installer may not be aware of it. When the weather gets under 40 degrees, a special cold weather urethane must be used for proper adhesion. Many glass shops don’t bother to use these more expensive yet proper materials to hold your windshield in. They are risking your life, not theirs.

Something as simple as a clean glass is critical. Installers must make the time to clean the bonding edge of the glass with a residue free glass cleaner and clean paper towel. This takes only 2 minutes, yet some installers forget it every day.

Clean hands are just as important. When placing a windshield in the car, the installer’s hands grasp the edge of the glass. This is where the glass bonds to the body of the car, and where oils or dirt can transfer from their hands to the glass easily. A new pair of disposable residue free gloves should be used on every installation. ......

Many glass installers don’t take the time to use a pinchweld primer. When a windshield is removed, small scratches are made underneath the molding area and around the edge of the glass. The primer is used to make sure the urethane has a proper surface to bond to. Primer is also used to keep any bare metal scratches from turning into rust problems later. This is something that we see quite often on cars that have previously had windshields replaced prior. Somebody hasn’t bothered to spend the 5 minutes and 15 cents it takes to make sure there will not be a rust problem a few years down the road. If the rust gets bad, the windshield will not have a safe pinchweld surface area to bond to on the car. The result is a windshield that will not stay in the car during a bad accident. This puts the occupants at a serious risk.

Often customers are not informed of safe drive away times. Temperature, humidity and the type of urethane your vehicle calls for, all change the amount of time necessary for the urethane to dry safely. Installers are not always taught how to determine the safe cure time for windshield bonding. How can the customer be told if the installer doesn’t know?

Exhibit A - Ultra Bond Windshield Crack Repair, Saves a Life In a Rollover Crash

Exhibit A, is a photograph of a rollover accident with a 12-inch long crack repair. The driver was unharmed because all of the FMVSS were in place because the 12-crack repair prevented a replacement from altering the original installation. There is almost no roof crush and the repaired crack remained in tact, see the red arrows in the photo.

In nearly all court cases, judges and juries weigh the relevant industry standards. Only recently have they been able to refer to AGRSS. Therein, only two federal motor-vehicle safety standards apply to the proper retention of windshields and their contributions to safety.



FMVSS 212 states that 50 percent of the glass must be retained in the car body, with a passenger-side air bag, when hitting a stationary barrier at 30 miles per hour—and members of the AGR industry strive for 75-to100 percent retention in aftermarket crash tests.

The second AGRSS reference is FMVSS 208, pertaining to passive restraints. The air bag is one example of a passive-restraint system. If the windshield has not been bonded in properly or if the adhesive has not cured sufficiently or does not have the right amount of strength, the air bag will not function properly as the windshield is meant to be a wall or barrier to help position the air bag in place for the occupant. If the windshield is loose or has no retention, the air bag could force the windshield away from the car and the air bag will not be in position to protect the occupant.

More liability rests on the nation’s six major urethane manufacturers than on installers. With an estimated 20,000 U.S. installers, if one accident every year relates to auto-glass failure, each faces only one chance in 20,000 that the case will rest on him or her.

However, adhesive manufacturers face a one in six chance of having their products called into question, all things being equal. Interestingly, with about 11 million windshields replaced annually, the average installer does 2.3 installations every business day.

In proprietary investigations, Dinol researchers have interviewed many sheriff’s deputies and experts who write up reports or witness serious automobile accidents. In each case, they have all seen windshield failures. But not one of the people interviewed has written in the reports that windshields failed, not knowing at the time that the windshields could be evidence to injuries.

Thousands of windshields give way each year in accidents, perhaps some the results of faulty installations ignored due to a lack of public understanding. This, of course, may change through public education.

If law officers then begin to record more glass failures, installers and suppliers alike can probably expect a rise in the number of lawsuits.

Today, virtually all adhesive manufactures publish safe drive-away values that meet only FMVSS 212 and 208, primarily dealing with collisions. Adhesive manufacturers do not weigh the results of FMVSS 216 tests when they figure drive-away times because it seems impossible to test the strength requirement of adhesives for every vehicle. Also, many OE engineers agree that vehicle design should not include the requirement of a bonded windshield to pass FMVSS 216, although it does contribute.

Therefore, in measuring their risk of lawsuits, auto-glass installers face considerable uncertainty regarding FMVSS 216, especially because the most recent lawsuits against auto-glass installers and suppliers have been vehicle-rollover cases. That alone should be cause for concern.

Some auto-glass attorneys and their clients effectively point the finger back at OE engineers for not designing cars with stronger A pillars and overall cab strength. They suspect that trying to convince a jury that a piece of glass is supposed to support the car body might be taken as a joke and that car designers must know better. It is an OE issue, not an installation issue, they argue.

“The combination is probably best,” Mike Sanders, president of the association and automotive market director for DuPont Co. in Wilmington, DE, recently advised in Automotive News. Sanders said that despite NHTSA’s conclusions, advanced glazing—going from tempered to laminated glass or even a stronger material—will be a cost-effective answer to the ejection problem. 

About 7,800 people are killed each year from full or partial ejection through windows, 4,800 in rollover crashes, according to NHTSA research. Roughly 1,300 lives a year would be saved with advanced glazing. 

The driver of the Toyota shown above was lucky. On Sept. 9, 2003, heading south toward Phoenix on I-17, he rolled three times. He was wearing his seat belt and the roof had substantial support. At least three factors kept the roof from caving in: 

• Total weight of the vehicle
• Cab structure and A pillars sufficient to hold the weight
• Windshield retained in place, contributing to cab stability. 

Another driver rolled a new Ford 350 pickup over in June 2002, just outside Tucson. The glass on the pinchweld was still intact and firmly bonded. Had this rollover accident not been too severe, the glass may have given additional support to the roof structure. This is a case where the OE designer could be to blame for not creating stronger roof support, or NHTSA standard setters could be cited for not requiring higher standards for rollover protection. The total mass of this big truck was a major factor in the accident.

Now look at safe drive-away times as one example of auto-glass installers’ risk factors and compare them to another high-risk practice such as not properly removing contamination from windshields before applying adhesive.

Compare the practices of two fictional installers who have great ideas of making it big in the auto-glass market and who pride themselves on saving time for customers:

Sam of Quick Sam’s Glass does everything by the book, except he lets vehicles go only a short while after installations. Sam uses only high-quality OE urethane, but it is not a product that will meet FMVSS until 48 hours after installation, on average.

Clint of Clean-n-Go Glass also does everything by the book. He uses a good fast drive-away product that meets FMVSS in one hour, and it is primerless. But Clint does not take the time to clean every windshield, as recommended by the manufacturer.

Taking the average, that of every installer doing two windshields every business day, the most cars Sam will ever have on the road with a potential for failure is, on average, only four. That average will not increase because every day two of the cars will reach safe drive-away time and every day he installs two more windshields.

Clint’s risk will continue to add up every day and after every installation he does when he fails to take the time to properly prepare the glass and remove contamination. These risks will remain for the life of the glass.

After two years of installations, Sam, who chooses to ignore safe drive-away times, will, on average, have had four vehicles on the road every day that do not meet FMVSS. If Sam finds another career after, say, two years, the risk is gone within 48 hours of his last installation.

Clint’s risk, on the other hand, continues to add up over time and will not go away until the cars he’s worked on are dead or their windshields are properly replaced.

There are about 260 business days each year, times two years and then times that by two windshields installed by Sam and Clint. That equals 1,044 units for each negligent installer.

For Clint, let’s assume that one of 50 windshields required special attention to remove film and could fail because the film was not removed. At the two-year mark:

• Sam’s risk remains four of 1,044 and will be zero 48 hours after his last installation, if he stops his practice.

• Clint’s risk would be 20 of 1,044 units and will not go away any time soon.

Try using this same logic with the other practices mentioned in the list on p. x.

Four-Point Risk Protection Plan