NGA Responds to TV's 20/20
Segment On Autoglass Safety

"The industry was all abuzz the week of February 25 with speculation that the ABC network investigative news program 20/20 was doing an expose on the dangers of windshield replacement.

The program did air, and it was a damming indictment of improper windshield replacement and the danger it represents. I say hats off to 20/20 for bringing these dangers to the public—something the industry has wanted to do for years.

For those who didn’t see the program, a reporter went to three different cities, incognito, and had a windshield replaced with an auto glass consultant overseeing the job to point out its failures. All the jobs were done incorrectly in some way. In one, no primer was used. The glass was handled with bare hands, contaminating the surface. In another, the installer did not tell the motorist that the vehicle should not be moved for a period of time while the adhesive set.

These are common errors and the industry knows it and has preached against them for years. The majority of people in this industry want safe installations; they know what is right and what is wrong. They take the responsibility of their work seriously because they know that people can be hurt by what they do and that there are legal liabilities. The industry has also decried that consumers and the insurance companies will not make the effort to carry through what is necessary for windshield replacements to be safe: That the job must be done right and the vehicle must set for a period of time before the adhesive has set enough to hold the unit in place in case of an accident.

Now, 20/20 has done this for us. The program has gotten across a point to a wide segment of the public that the industry had not had the resources or backing of its partners in replacement work (the insurance companies) to do.

Yes, the show was a bit sensational. The tremor in Barbara Walters’s voice as she told the TV audience that they were going to see astonishing proof that they are driving around in unsafe vehicles was designed to grab people’s attention.

Yes, the report was incomplete, undoubtedly at least in part because of its time limit and the complexity of the issues that were being dealt with. The interview with the woman who became a quadriplegic had to be expected, but was she wearing a seat belt or not? The subject wasn’t mentioned in the interview. Also, throughout the program there was no mention of the role the insurance companies play in this except at the end when the reporter, Arnold Diaz, said in response to a Barbara Walters question that insurance agents often steer people to the lowest bid installer, which is certainly no guarantee of a safe installation. Barbara smartly countered that consumers have to become more educated. Right on, Barbara!

What the program did recommend was that certified installers be used. Diaz said to ask the company, and the installer himself, if he is certified. This, he said, gives a higher guarantee of a safe installation. You can’t fault the advice. The industry has been urged to certify installers and promote this fact to consumers. (The National Glass Association has certified more than 11,500 installers, and the number goes up every month.)

This is being written the day after the program aired. Did consumers get scared that their replacement windshields were unsafe and run back to the installing company to have them checked out? Are consumers wiser about the dangers of unsafe windshield installation and more willing to listen and act on what they have to do to get a safe installation?

It’s certainly too soon to say, but if these news programs have the impact that they are reputed to have, this may be the opening salvo in a battle that the industry can willingly participate in. Making consumers aware that there are safety issues in windshield installation and they need to take steps to minimize them is good for the majority of our industry, and certainly the most responsible elements in it.

The woman who had been injured in the accident put the responsibility squarely on the installer for the mistake, but that is an oversimplification. If the insurance company won’t pay to have a decent job done, whose fault is that? If the consumer won’t let the vehicle set for the required amount of time for the urethane to cure, whose fault is that?

These questions are now before the public—as the industry has wanted for a long time. Maybe now they can start being dealt with and the professionalism of the industry will gain the complete respect that it deserves—by consumers, by insurance companies, and within itself.

The 20/20 program has done the industry a favor."