AGRR™ magazine/glassBYTEs.com™ Message Forum

AGRR Magazine
AGRR™ Magazine

glassBYTEs.com

AGRSS

NWRA

Key Media & Research
Privacy Policy


ATTENTIONThe glassBYTEs.com forum is being retooled and will return with a new look and functionality that will hopefully help our readers even more. Watch for an announcement when it will be ready, it will be a few months.

You can still stay up on daily news and comment on stories by signing up for the glassBYTEs daily e-newsletter at glass.com/subcenter. There is no charge. Hope to see you there!
General Forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
ROLAGS Standard

The Repair of Laminated Automotive Glass Standard (ROLAGS) has been accepted as an American National Standard by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). How do you feel about this?

Re: ROLAGS Standard

It would appear to me that the impact of this is somewhat diluted by the recent retreat of State Farm and others from the repair markets. If no one is really accountable for adherance to the ROLAGS standard the cash market is too fragemented), it doesn't carry the same weight. This could become true of AGRSS if deductibles keep rising.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

warm and fuzzy all over

Re: ROLAGS Standard

These standards carry little weight unless or until REAL validation, accountability, or the ability to track important data can be built into them.

Insurers are not going to pay more to a AGRSS compliant shop, PPGProstar shop, NGA member shop, etc. until proof can be laid in front of them that it SAVES THEM MONEY by paying to have it done correctly. No data exists that will prove this as yet. Further, nothing says insurers would pay more even if the data existed that could prove that it has saved them money.

Simply having a voluntary standard means little to glass companies in the everyday real world. It may reduce your risk, it may lend to some marketing advantages, but in no way will it stop someone in your area from installing glass improperly and yet being paid the EXACT same amount as you do despite your years of experience and credentials filling up your offices.

The odds of something ever happening and being traced to a particular shop, then getting to a courtroom, and then ever becoming public, are slim to none. And many AGR companies both large and small know this. Sadly, that is what I think it will finally take for the AGR and insurance industries to FINALLY understand the safety issues and understand that both industries have to work together to accomplish the goal of safe windshield installations, safer consumers/policyholders at a price that can keep quality installers and AGR companies in this industry.

Don't get me wrong, I am 100% behind both AGRSS and ROLAGS. The trend has to start somewhere. It will not change overnight and perhaps won't change in the next 5-10 years even. But it will only worsen if NOTHING is done to track bad or faulty installs and begin to fix these issues or hold those accountable that continue to ignore "industry best practices".

The fact is few things are tracked for insurance and almost nothing is tracked in the cash market, thus no accountability. To many "players" like it that way, it "limits their liability". How many "used cars" have you seen the windshield literally falling out of and yet the consumer has very little recourse except to have a new windshield installed?

Have you ever asked why the insurers do not require simple, easy to collect data such as the adhesive and primer batch #'s, Brand and DOT of the windshield, etc. on invoices or EDI transactions?? If they truly care about the safety of their policyholders wouldn't they want to know and track this type of data on each and every replacement? The insurers lack of requirements for the important data mentioned above, countered by some TPA's apparent more urgent need for email addresses of all things, and the all important pricing agreements, can lead on to only one conclusion. Safety is not their concern. Tracing real, important data, is not their concern. Being able to reccomend service providers based on credentials is not their concern. Their only concern apparently is PRICE. Not the price of one of their insureds being killed in an accident, but the $$$ they pay to have a "piece of glass" installed.

/rant off

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, AGRSS & ROLAGS are voluntary standards that should be met. Safety first! The biggest safety issue, however, is when the windshield dislodges during a crash rendering the safety restraint system less effective.

It has been said in the past that upto 70% of the windshield replacements in U.S.A. & Canada could have been repaired rather than replaced. That is extremely wasteful!

Original equipment standards are meant for items that are being sold as "new". It is ridiculous to think that those standards must be maintained at all times once the product is put into use. If that were the case, we would have to replace brake pads every few miles, buy new tires every month and pull over and wash our windshields every time we received a bug splatt!

It seems that NGA wants to introduce legislation in every state. So now that ROLAGS has been approved, any proposed legislation should REQUIRE a "repair first" clause that would make it illegal to replace a repairable windshield.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

We agree! -- The Insurance Industry

Re: ROLAGS Standard

And it should be illegal to repair a windshield if it is so bad as to be a danger to the operator of the vehicle. Repairing a 10 year old vehicle with 4 bulls eyes 6 chips and a couple of star breaks should be illegal. Most of the w/sheild repair people would probably stare drooling at the prospect of this sale as they would milk this for all it is worth to them. Who cares about the customer.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Hey Right On...

Not every repair and replacement shop tries to turn a repair into a replacement. If the damage isn't in the drivers line of sight or otherwise a distraction and the customer has a deductible, then why not do the repair and help the customer save money. That's what repairs are for isn't it??...to save the customer money??

Lets be honest though, it seems the only people you guys (the insurance industry) are pushing repairs on are the ones with 0 deductibles. In that situation who's interests are better served..?? Hmmm??

What's wrong with people actually getting compensated for the insurance they paid for. When their windshield gets damaged they get a new one. Having a 0 deductible doesn't mean they get one without paying for it, they paid upfront, its called PREMIUMS.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

And Now that is RIGHT ON!!!!!

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Even if you have a $0 comprehensive deductible, wouldn't it be wiser and "greener" to opt for the repair? I would, even if the rock chip was "in my direct line of vision" because I look past the windshield and a small chip, bug splatt or bird do doesn't interfere with the overall big picture.

I'd rather wait a few minutes for a repair than have my windshield cut out and take a chance of getting an air leak or water leak or both and then wonder if the AGRSS guidelines were being practiced on my installation.

I would feel much better that I wasn't responsible for wasting a still functional piece of glass. When you think about it, windshield repair helps combat the so called "global warming" problem!

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Couldn't agree more Davey!!! - The Insurance Industry

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Davey

I wish I could break down your replies point by point, but I feel in doing so it would seem like some kind of personal attack and I really don't want to go there or have any such misinterpretations.

Just a couple of thoughts though.....

There are some people, a large group of people, who take pride in their vehicles, and the investment they have made in that vehicle. They DO notice bug splatt and bird do and promptly remove it at the first opportunity by washing the windshield or the car as a whole. They also notice rock chips and other damage even after repair and find it very distracting as well as annoying.

I am sorry that you do not know of a good, reputable AGR shop in your area. I would rank that (please pardon my bias) right up there with finding a good, honest, and reputable Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant, and Auto Mechanic, people who are obsessive compulsive about their chosen profession and will always give you the best service humanly possible, because their integrity will allow nothing less. I am sure if you were to ask on this board, about finding a good shop in your area, there are people here who would help you out.

To tell the truth Davey, if a repair is what you wanted, a repair is what you would get if you chose to use my company and I would be more than happy to do it, without trying to talk you into a replacement. There is no pressure when dealing with my company, the customer makes up their own mind. Maybe that's why my business does well, because I take the time to find out what the customer wants and then exceed their expectations, through service and quality of work performed.

Even though the insurance company pays the bill, they ARE NOT the customer, the insured is and as such, they are the ones I want to make happy. Use of environmentalism as a guilt trip so that an insurance company does not have to meet contractual obligations is absurd, especially when human and bovine flatulence is the largest producer of green house gases causing the so called "global warming" problem.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Most reputable repair businesses guarantee customer satisfaction or they don't charge for the repair. It seems like customers should at least try the repair first and then if not satisfied could have a replacement done. If repairs are done according to ROLAGS, I bet the majority would be satisfied.

P.S. I'm glad that you pointed out that problem with the bovines. All this time I have been blaming my neighbor with the swine operation for the occasional unsavory odor but now I will be contacting my other neighbor with the Angus farm.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Davey, You are the MAN!! - The Insurance Industry

Re: ROLAGS Standard

RIGHT ON!

Get the record fixed; it's broken. You present a simplistic one sentence argument that holds as much water as a mosquito net.

And, MUD FLAP, I'd like to deal with your points one by one as you suggested to another contributor also, but won't bother to take the time except to make some general comments.

To begin with, I don't understand how the REPAIR standards of laminated glass somehow was turned into REPLACEMENT standards in the first place! Were a few not reading the question posed? Are they missing a road map or are we encountering some serious cases of lack of attention?

Secondly and in direct regard to the matter posed, it's about time that agreeable standards were set for the repair industry even though I strongly disagree with a four inch limit for cracks. Six inch would have been more reasonable and realistic. ANYONE who cannot properly repair a straight, clean crack the length of a dollar bill doesn't belong in the repair business in the first place and I KNOW that they couldn't do a decent job on a combination or where or why to drill into a half moon.

Don't discount the environmental concerns relating to discarding shields which cannot be recycled because of laminate contamination which end up in garbage dumps.

To compare methane producing bovines to 18 million discarded windshields in the U.S. alone is no kind of argument nor any kind of valid comparison. They BOTH contribute to global warming either directly or indirectly.

At least Elsie the Cow has an excuse for her windy explosions and that is to provide steaks for one's Fourth of July cook out or tri-weekly McDonald's triple burger.

Which contributor to pollution would any of us give up if given the choice? And, don't kid yourself, those choices need to be made and soon.

What is the excuse for someone in our business who KNOWS that a windshield could easily be repaired and then proceeds to replace that windshield just because the customer wants it and the insurance company (all of us insured) end up paying for it?

There IS none that does NOT relate exclusively and directly to the Almighty Dollar as opposed to a matter of conscience and social responsibility and the future consideration of our kids and grand kids.

My company converts almost 97% of referred insurance customers with full shield coverage to repairs and for the past three years has sent that 3% back to the insurance company for replacement by other shops when that replacement is NECESSARY because I pulled us out of the replacement business.

This will bend some noses but I am of the opinion that over 85% of installers do not belong in the repair business in the first placebecause they look at same like they would treat their third ******* son.

And, 50% of repair people don't belong in EITHER business.

As far as that post about repairing six or seven old repairs is concerned, that's a neat manufactured scenario. Allow me to present one less ridiculous and more realistic.

How about replacing three shields none of which needed replacement in the first place and then finding the need to spend a half hour or more cleaning up the area that the previous "technician" left for you in order that one can effect a qualified replacement?

It is easy to point out a lousy repair; it isn't easy to point out a lousy replacement.

Go REPAIR standards and requirements and my company is all for it.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

We like you too Jim. Educate the masses! We want them all to be as smart as you and Davey! More repairs, that's the ticket! - The Insurance Industry

Re: ROLAGS Standard

JIM

I was wondering how long it would take for you to join in. I say that in a good way, with a smile not a scowl. I am not going to debate "global warming" with you either, there is no point.

Like I said earlier, I have no problems doing repairs, I turn out very nice repairs. I don't know your opinion of the company, but I use Ultra Bond bridge and resins, I have been very satisfied with their products. I have more than recouped my initial investment many times over.

As far as the original intent of the thread goes, to me its just another piece of paper on the wall.

I took umbrage to the statements and agreement about the unnecessary replacements. Especially in light of the fact that a VERY large number of the repairs we do for customers that insurance companies pay for are 0 deductibles. It seems they have no problem at all dispatching a replacement when there is a $100 and up deductible, often times not even asking the customer if they would like a repair to be attempted. I wondered about this curious lack of consistency, until I realized, who's interests were being served.

If you have a customer who wants a repair done, they are going to be satisfied with a repair. If you have a customer who wants a replacement most times they aren't going to be satisfied with a repair no matter how good it looks. I am sorry, but I don't feel I have the right to tell some one what should or shouldn't satisfy them. I mean seriously, I am not going to tell a customer who has faithfully paid their premiums for the last 10 years, never filing a claim, that they HAVE to be satisfied with a repair, when they want a new windshield. If the Insurance Industry isn't happy with that, maybe they should change the wording in their policy, otherwise they should STFU and do what they are contractually obligated to do.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Don't get me wrong, MUDFLAP. Nothing that I implied and stated about incompetent repair and replacement so-called "technicians" was meant personally for you or anyone else in this thread.

Ultra Bond is a good resin and so is Delta Magna Bond. In my twenty years in this business, I have never stopped testing various equipment and resins in order to effect the highest quality repairs possible. I started with Glass-Weld and ended up designing a bridge of my own. I am in the process now of testing another resin as well as designing another piece of equipment entirely aside from bridges that I may end up manufacturing and marketing down the road.

I am well aware of the average shop's attitude toward repair and their basement level conversion rate apropos replacement. I understand the bottom line $ reasoning but in this day and age of waste of nonrenewable resources, I find their attitude unconscionable.

The point made by another contributor before me that 70% of the 18 million replacements per year are completely unnecessary was close to the mark.

I must question your conclusion that insurance companies do not push repairs as opposed to replacing. In my area, MetLife, Allstate, AIG, Horace Mann and Amerprise are ALL attempting to convert people with full w/s coverage to repairs. I think that they are finally realizing the liability when it comes to air bag blown out shields and roll over accidents.

After all, the shield is @60% of the strength of the roof and the back stop for the bag.

State Farm's latest test of water temperature move is counterintuitive and misdirected. But, judging by their pathetic track record after Katrina as well as other areas, to be expected and certainly unsurprising.

To sum it up, I still think that the two trades of repair and replacement should be separate and distinct with very few exceptions. But, what those two trades really have in common is the fact that they must fight together against the big boys.

As far as I am concerned, I welcome ROLAGS and look forward to the day that no one will be allowed to either repair or replace any shield without being certified.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

You tell them Jim! This new standard is not about insurance. Its about the "waste of nonrenewable resources" and the "70% of the 18 million replacements" that are "completely unnecessary". - The Insurance Industry

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Where do you guys pull these numbers from. You are just throwing percentages out there to try and justify your argument.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

I must admit, RIGHT ON!! that you ain't as dumb as you appear to be at first glance. You are one funny dude.

Sure as you say, insurance companies are the culprits but only because we allowed them to become the Prime Mover (after we kissed the butts of networks) and now they have become the Prime Mover Unmoved.

Almost Prime Mover's Unmoved that is and still possible of being thwarted except for examples like this...

who is this NON guy?

Does that NON stand for non compos mentis?


This person flat out accuses me or insinuates that I have created not only bogus replacement figures but the percentage of unnecessary replacements with a snide remark?

Without even quoting other sources disputing the facts?

Where do the facts come from, NON?

The same place you will find the answer to the definition of non compos mentis when and if you ever back away from a video game and learn how to Google search instead and then gather the facts yourself.

Do that and than come back on board with some information rather than half-baked opinions.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Jim

I'am sorry Jim. I read your post again and I see your figures are just your oppion. My mistake, I thought they were real numbers.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

That's right Jim. As this incredibly asinine string demonstrates, we are not as dumb as we appear. We are really not all that smart either. As we all can now read, with Mensa wannabes like you walking around, intelligence is not required…just patience.

So, you go Son! We certainly appreciate your efforts! (Like taking candy from a baby!) - The Insurance Industry

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Hey, Right On!! if you really represent the insurance industry and want to see a bigger percentage of repairs vs. replacements, why do you treat repair claims the same as accidents with injuries? Also, why not give your policyholders a "positive" incident report for choosing the responsible choice instead of a "negative" black mark on their record? Just curious.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

HEY JIM !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'l ask again. Where the heck do you get 18 million replacements a year?

I wish it was an accurate number, but I don't think so.

Allowing 286 working days a year ( 5 days plus 1/2 day on Sat.) that comes out to 63,000 windshields per day.

I don't think there is enough manufacturing capacity ( allowing for the 8-10 million new cars built here each year )

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Gee whiz. ****ed if I know where to even start.

But, how about this?

"That's right Jim. As this incredibly asinine string demonstrates, we are not as dumb as we appear. We are really not all that smart either. As we all can now read, with Mensa wannabes like you walking around, intelligence is not required…just patience."

Precisely who is the "we" you talk refer to, Right On? Do you presume to represent everyone else in this thread or is the "we" just you? If not, name the others within your hidden cabal. Otherwise you have presented nothing more than an argumentum ad populem coupled with a cheap argumentum ad hominem.

Not only that, it seems that you have been an integral part of this "asinine string" and therefore part of the presumed problem by contributing vacuous one sentence statements about the insurance companies which many have found to be confusing.

And: "intelligence is not required…just patience."

Huh? The first is a given considering your past posts. As far as the second--patience-- is concerned, I'm still waiting patiently for you to contribute even one positive or insightful contribution toward the original post by AGRR in re ROLAGS standards.

Can we know return to that subject?

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Longislandguy. Thanks for asking. Start out with this link: http://www.glass.org/store/ws_study.htm and then take it from there.

Although it doesn't quote any direct figures for replacement, it is really a good example of why arriving at the definite figures for replacement are so difficult.

There are other sources that will attempt to zero in on those numbers that I can quote later if you wish.

One thing is certain, it is dubious at most should one take seriously into consideration any numbers quoted by vested interests within either the repair or replacements industry.

They have their own axes to grind.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

"Jim

I'am sorry Jim. I read your post again and I see your figures are just your oppion. My mistake, I thought they were real numbers."

Thanks for your gracious apology, Non Compos Mentis. I'm sure it didn't come easily.

But, how about cluing me in? Exactly how did you manage to discover that my figures were just my opinion? I thought that I had everyone hoodwinked.

Are you privy to secret sources and perhaps (gasp) a member of Skull and Bones?

Come on, Non Compos Mentis. Reveal to all of us the secret handshake and the ultra top secret password to your private source.

Puleese?

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Jim

Your direct insults on this forum make it more enjoyable to read, the Auto glass information is getting quite boring. Keep up the good work! We need more posters like yourself to help lead and educate this industry like you have done. Thanks again Jim and keep up the good work!

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Thanks, NON. I'm glad to hear that my alleged insults are your raison d'etre insofar as this forum is concerned.

There is, however, one thing that I might mention. I insult no one unless they insult me first. My questioning someone's faulty reasoning or bogus "facts" shouldn't be taken as a personal rebuke unless that person has thin skin and a fragile ego to begin with. And, not even then.

By the way, and I hope MY question to you is within the confines of the original question concerning the ROLAG standards, exactly HOW do YOU feel about those standards? Or, is that out of bounds in this thread?

I'm still not quite clear on that point. I have re-read your posts and failed to see any salient reply or even proffered opinion to that precise question elsewhere.

And, in reference to another post by another person, standards and compliance with those standards are two different animals. Try not to confuse the two points.

Once the ROLOG standards are in place, our industry can then begin to work on compliance. Let's get the horse before the cart.

There are plenty of reasons why INSTALLATION standards still haven't come to fruition as far as compliance is concerned with the result that any shade tree mechanic with a chisel and a glue gun can still slap in a junkyard windshield.

And, a lot of that is due to legitimate independents who fight among themselves and pay nothing more than lip service to mutual independent cooperation while babbling excuses that they "don't have the time" to become involved.

Simply complaining about Safelite/Belron and NAG and insurance companies and agent kick-backs won't cut it.

Pro-activity CAN!

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Lets not forget, Belron had 2 voting members on the ANSI committee, the one member is the president of Glass Medic. The vote was without a no at the ANSI final meeting. It appears we do things a little different here in the US. It seems that Belron's tactics are similar to their ways in other countries.

The Repair community needs to stay strong.....

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Well where do I begin? Is it really a surprise Belron isn't in favor of doing a 14 inch crack, no it isn't. Most of the replacement industry has been forced over the years into repairing because of small pesty Entrepreneurs doing what the consumer wanted. Which was to remove that ding on their windshield. Autoglass shops wrongly saw these repair people as stealing their customers. So rather then emrace repair and perform the servise themselves they resisted for 15 years. Now most repairs are done by auto glass shops that make a dias determination on what "they" want to repair, not what is good for the consumer as Belron claims to be doing, REALLY NOW. What is the real reason Belron doesn't want to comply with ROLAGS or AGRSS or any other standard, what would be the cost for them to comply. $$$ Rolags and AGRSS are good for the consumer, period.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

To much talk,not enough action.You repair guys are a different breed.Go back to college book boy.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Speaking as a consumer, let me determine what is good for me all by myself.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Of course, obviously, and with profit maximization in mind we inform consumers of their options when discussing chip repair. Our capabilities do not include crack repair, nor do we wish to get involved with crack repair. We obvioulsy would rather replace it. We do, however, inform callers that the long crack repair option is available to them, and suggest they peruse the yellow pages or internet to find a repair specialist. Most opt not to and bingo, we sold a windshield. We do not apologize for or feel bad for operating this way.

Re: ROLAGS Standard

Shorty--you were on the mark.

I was part of the repair industry twenty years ago when repair began to pose a serious threat to the replacement market.

Replacement shops and shield manufacturers bad-mouthed the repair industry every chance that they could at that time and, generally, their attitude hasn't changed a bit.

The manufacturers even tried to prove that repairing shields would lead to a dangerous situation and ergo: a non-integral w/s. They were blown out of the water in all subsequent testing.

(As if improper replacement techniques were not infinitely MORE dangerous than a lousy looking repair in the first place.)

And then replacement shops were forced kicking and screaming to add repair to their agenda. The training was as atrocious as one finds for the typical car wash repair five minute push/pull "technician" today and purposely so. It did them no good to effect a professional repair, did it?

And, with few exceptions, not much has changed. I might add that there are far fewer repair technicians that branched into the replacement business and assumed themselves to be expert "techs" than the opposite.

I appreciate the fact that Glasssgod admits not working on cracks and gives the customer a choice even if the possibility arises that the choice might be skewed in his favor.

My company is comprised of repair experts using the latest equipment technology and the finest, most expensive refractive index resin for various temperatures and even with 100% shield coverage converts over 98% of our customers to repair with a less than a 1% rate of dissatisfaction after the end result and we take great pride in those figures.

Anyway, I am willing to settle for the ROLAG crack limit for now although I'm sure that Ultra-bond probably isn't satisfied and rightly so. And, I would like to mention that the ROLAG standards deal with other issues other than just crack length repairable damage.

Glass Man's dumb remark doesn't even justify an honorable mention much more a reply other than to point out that, at least it was concise, albeit vacuous.

Copyright © AGRR™/glassBYTEs™ All rights reserved.
20 PGA Drive, Suite 201, Stafford, Virginia 22554
540-720-5584 (P) 540-720-5687 (F) info@agrrmag.com
www.agrrmag.com / www.glassbytes.com