Michael Pardee <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:GY6dnYXBCaoNiP_eRVn-qw@sedona.net...
> "Doug McCrary" <DougMcCrary@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:R%h8f.32481$gF4.10586@trnddc07...
> >
> > <techman41973@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1130452464.040485.311020@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> >> According to California law, I can't patch it, I
> >> must replace the winshield.
> >
> > I'm not finding that - Chapter and verse, please?
> >
> >
> A good indication of whether all patches are unapproved is whether there are
> Novus dealers listed in the "glass replacement or repair" section of the
> local phone book; they won't thrive if what they do is illegal. Apparently
> the technique has also changed recently, because the last time I had a star
> crack repaired they said the maximum size was one that could be covered by a
> quarter. Now I'm told they can repair it if the crack can be covered by a
> dollar bill. Maybe the next time it will be if they can be covered by a $100
> bill ;-)
>
> Our last crack was too big, and we got a good price and good service on
> replacement from Safelite. YMMV.
>
> Mike
>
> Mike
>
Thanks, Mike. I'd still like to know where it is the CA code, though.
>

 

techman41973@yahoo.com wrote:
> I just got a rock chip in my winshield, directly in my line of sight on
> my 97 Honda Accord. According to California law, I can't patch it, I
> must replace the winshield.
> I got a quote from a local glass shop chain.
> The cost is only $180 including labor.
> This seems way too inexpensive (although perhaps prices have dropped in
> recent years.)
> I am almost sure the the replacement is not OEM.
> Is it important to use OEM replacements? Not only for safety reasons
> but for quality reasons as well.
> Also, the shop told me I can drive away in about 1/2 hour. This seems
> fishy to me as I would believe that the adhesives need to cure
> properly. I would appreciate any advice.
> Thanks
>

I have had very good luck with aftermarket glass installed by local
shops. No reason to pay Honda $$$$$ prices for it.

John

 

mst wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2005 15:34:24 -0700 techman41973@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> No 'adhesives' involved in either of those two methods.
>
> I paid $80 for a brand-new windshield, OEM quality
> and then paid $70 for installation.
>

Current safety laws require all new US vehicles to have adhesive bonded
windshields. They don't pop out in accidents like the gasket mounted types.

John

 

Doug McCrary wrote:
> Michael Pardee <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
> news:GY6dnYXBCaoNiP_eRVn-qw@sedona.net...
>> "Doug McCrary" <DougMcCrary@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:R%h8f.32481$gF4.10586@trnddc07...
>>> <techman41973@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1130452464.040485.311020@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>>>> According to California law, I can't patch it, I
>>>> must replace the winshield.
>>> I'm not finding that - Chapter and verse, please?
>>>
>>>
>> A good indication of whether all patches are unapproved is whether there are
>> Novus dealers listed in the "glass replacement or repair" section of the
>> local phone book; they won't thrive if what they do is illegal. Apparently
>> the technique has also changed recently, because the last time I had a star
>> crack repaired they said the maximum size was one that could be covered by a
>> quarter. Now I'm told they can repair it if the crack can be covered by a
>> dollar bill. Maybe the next time it will be if they can be covered by a $100
>> bill ;-)
>>
>> Our last crack was too big, and we got a good price and good service on
>> replacement from Safelite. YMMV.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Mike
>>
> Thanks, Mike. I'd still like to know where it is the CA code, though.
>
>

AFAIK, its a citeable offense, good for a $10 "fix it ticket".

that is...

IF you get pulled over
IF you get cited
THEN you have to fix it

prolly something in the code about having an obstructed view, or
something. im not the OP, so i dont know or really care, but im sure
theres something in the code about not obstructing your windshield.

 

Had a brand new VW once...got a star break on the way home....too big
for repair...so new windshield. Original was OEM (obvisously);
replacement not.

Had a new Toyota with scratches in the driver's side of the windshield
at time of purchase....finally got the dealer to accept the defect and
they replaced it. (Actually dealer had some local glass outfit do the
replacement - not OEM by the way; replacement job was done right there
in the dealer's service bay!).

Had more than couple of replacements on Honda Accord in 5 years....none
were OEM and, per others on this group, less $.

Moral of this story.....auto glass has to meet Federal safety
standards, and any reputable glass outfit knows that....save the $ and
believe other posts on this group about non-OEM windshields. (Even my
original Honda windshield had some distortions...)

 

"SoCalMike" <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ZOdneFAsaVL7v_eRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> Doug McCrary wrote:
>> Thanks, Mike. I'd still like to know where it is the CA code, though.
>>
>>
>
> AFAIK, its a citeable offense, good for a $10 "fix it ticket".
>
> that is...
>
> IF you get pulled over
> IF you get cited
> THEN you have to fix it
>
> prolly something in the code about having an obstructed view, or
> something. im not the OP, so i dont know or really care, but im sure
> theres something in the code about not obstructing your windshield.

(Disclaimer: I haven't been a Californian for many a year....)
When I have had cracks repaired they were effectively invisible. I could get
*real* close and make out hairlines, but otherwise they couldn't be seen.

Now I'm an Arizonan and as long as huge chunks of the car don't fall in the
path of a patrolman, most such things are usually ignored. (A few months ago
my son was attacked on the freeway by a rolling something that looked like a
brake drum and lodged above his spoiler - true story!) I am cynical enough
to think the complaints are saved until the patrolman wants to pull the car
over, though.

Mike

 

techman41973@yahoo.com wrote:
> I must replace the winshield.
> I got a quote from a local glass shop chain.
> The cost is only $180 including labor.
> This seems way too inexpensive (although perhaps prices have dropped in
> recent years.)
> I am almost sure the the replacement is not OEM.
> Is it important to use OEM replacements? Not only for safety reasons
> but for quality reasons as well.
> Also, the shop told me I can drive away in about 1/2 hour. This seems
> fishy to me as I would believe that the adhesives need to cure
> properly.

The most important factor, by far, is how well the windshield is glued
in place since there's far more variation with this than with the
quality of the glass. If the windshield doesn't stay in place in a
crash, not only will unbelted occupants be at greater risk of injury
but also belted occupants can suffer since airbags, especially the
passenger one, depend on the windshield to hold them in place.

A good installation requires taht the glass and window opening be very
clean, gloves worn during installation to prevent skin oil from
contaminating the surfaces, and the proper primer and urethane adhesive
(made with different cure rates for different temperatures) be used.
The current preferred practice is to remove all the old urethane from
the window opening. Also the car should not be driven until at least
twice the cure time has passed. When I replaced my own windshield, the
adhesive required anywhere from 2-6 hours to cure. My windshield never
leaked, unlike most of those done on company cars by a local chain of
glass shops that advertised heavily and offered insurance deductible
rebates and free restaurant dinners.

 

John Horner wrote:
> mst wrote:

> > On 27 Oct 2005 15:34:24 -0700 techman41973@yahoo.com wrote:

> > Here's my experience with windshields, 'old style' and new

> > A gasket (moldable yet firm goo) is layed around the perimeter
> > of the windshield deck. The new windshield is layed on top of
> this gasket and also rests against alignment clips.

> > You're ready to drive off.

> > About six months ago, I had a windshield replaced on my
> > truck. A rubber gasket (it's grooved on the ID of the
> > gasket) is wrapped around the windshield, which forms a
> > rubber 'ring' around the windshield, then the windshield
> > with this rubber gasket ring is pressed into the winshield channel.

> Current safety laws require all new US vehicles to have adhesive bonded
> windshields. They don't pop out in accidents like the gasket mounted types.

I believe federal regulations only require that a certain high
percentage of the windshield remain in place and unpierced. It doesn't
mandate the use of adhesive, and I had a VW Golf (Rabbit in U.S.) with
the windshield held in place with a gasket, but on the left and right
sides were metal strips with alligator teeth to dig into the gasket and
make it hold the glass much more securely. The alligator strips also
made installation much more difficult, and I'm sure some unscrupulous
glass shops left them out. These strips, being made of heavily
galvanized steel, probably also prevented the opening from rusting, a
major problem with my rear hatch window. I believe car makers switched
to adhesives in order to save time (glue can cure as the car travels
down the production line) and to allow a more flush perimeter around
the glass.

 

Michael Pardee <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:SNWdnZ7KEOSOOP_eRVn-hQ@sedona.net...
> "SoCalMike" <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9ZOdneFAsaVL7v_eRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> > Doug McCrary wrote:
> >> Thanks, Mike. I'd still like to know where it is the CA code, though.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > AFAIK, its a citeable offense, good for a $10 "fix it ticket".
> >
> > that is...
> >
> > IF you get pulled over
> > IF you get cited
> > THEN you have to fix it
> >
> > prolly something in the code about having an obstructed view, or
> > something. im not the OP, so i dont know or really care, but im sure
> > theres something in the code about not obstructing your windshield.
>
> (Disclaimer: I haven't been a Californian for many a year....)
> When I have had cracks repaired they were effectively invisible. I could get
> *real* close and make out hairlines, but otherwise they couldn't be seen.
>
> Now I'm an Arizonan and as long as huge chunks of the car don't fall in the
> path of a patrolman, most such things are usually ignored. (A few months ago
> my son was attacked on the freeway by a rolling something that looked like a
> brake drum and lodged above his spoiler - true story!) I am cynical enough
> to think the complaints are saved until the patrolman wants to pull the car
> over, though.
>
> Mike
>
>
Thanks guys.
I guess I'll ask my shop manager at my yard.
I know we have to replace cracked windows on buses, but not sure what law(s) or
reg(s) cover that. But that's commercial, dunno if it applies to personal
vehicles.

 

Doug McCrary wrote:
> I guess I'll ask my shop manager at my yard.
> I know we have to replace cracked windows on buses, but not sure what law(s) or
> reg(s) cover that. But that's commercial, dunno if it applies to personal
> vehicles.

commercial use is WAY more strict. in california, commercial drivers
arent allowed traffic school any more to get a point off their record,
even if theyre driving their own personal vehicle. its THAT strict...

 

"Doug McCrary" <DougMcCrary@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:uQC8f.572$iv3.166@trnddc08...
>
> Thanks guys.
> I guess I'll ask my shop manager at my yard.
> I know we have to replace cracked windows on buses, but not sure what
> law(s) or
> reg(s) cover that. But that's commercial, dunno if it applies to personal
> vehicles.

The best way to find out what the law requires is to read the law. Do a
search of your legislated laws and regulations and then have a read.

Here any defect (stone chip, crack, etc.) that is in the line of sight of
the driver is reason to repair or replace the windshield.

 

"SoCalMike" <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O4-dnYibpcbQkv7eRVn-gA@comcast.com...
> Doug McCrary wrote:
> commercial use is WAY more strict. in california, commercial drivers arent
> allowed traffic school any more to get a point off their record, even if
> theyre driving their own personal vehicle. its THAT strict...

Getting farther OT... the CDLs where I work are shocked by new DUI
provisions in the regulations. (I have no idea if it is a state or federal
statute involved.) Now, if they get a DUI and have had another DUI in the
last 55 years - like if they are 70 and had one when they were 16 - their
CDL is permanently revoked and they have to find a new line of work. I have
no patience for DUI, but that seems a little ex post facto to me in that
whether a driver gets one or two strikes is tied to their record before the
law was enacted. Of course, it is no different than "three strikes" laws in
that respect.

Mike

 

Brian Smith <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
news:2yI8f.52309$yS6.51432@clgrps12...
>
> "Doug McCrary" <DougMcCrary@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:uQC8f.572$iv3.166@trnddc08...
> >
> > Thanks guys.
> > I guess I'll ask my shop manager at my yard.
> > I know we have to replace cracked windows on buses, but not sure what
> > law(s) or
> > reg(s) cover that. But that's commercial, dunno if it applies to personal
> > vehicles.
>
> The best way to find out what the law requires is to read the law. Do a
> search of your legislated laws and regulations and then have a read.
>
Yeah, if you read above you'll see I looked for, but couldn't isolate such law.
Asked for chapter and verse. No specific response.

> Here any defect (stone chip, crack, etc.) that is in the line of sight of
> the driver is reason to repair or replace the windshield.
>
>

 

Michael Pardee <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:4bOdne7lb-Zj4_7eRVn-iw@sedona.net...
> "SoCalMike" <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:O4-dnYibpcbQkv7eRVn-gA@comcast.com...
> > Doug McCrary wrote:
> > commercial use is WAY more strict. in california, commercial drivers arent
> > allowed traffic school any more to get a point off their record, even if
> > theyre driving their own personal vehicle. its THAT strict...
>
> Getting farther OT... the CDLs where I work are shocked by new DUI
> provisions in the regulations. (I have no idea if it is a state or federal
> statute involved.) Now, if they get a DUI and have had another DUI in the
> last 55 years - like if they are 70 and had one when they were 16 - their
> CDL is permanently revoked and they have to find a new line of work. I have
> no patience for DUI, but that seems a little ex post facto to me in that
> whether a driver gets one or two strikes is tied to their record before the
> law was enacted. Of course, it is no different than "three strikes" laws in
> that respect.
>
> Mike
>
I think that might be a slight exaggeration, but yes, I believe it's state laws,
forced by Federal regs. I know that is the case with the new "S" endorsement.

 

"Doug McCrary" <DougMcCrary@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:_dY8f.16742$ti.14559@trnddc02...
>
> Yeah, if you read above you'll see I looked for, but couldn't isolate such
> law.
> Asked for chapter and verse. No specific response.

Then the people to ask (in person or on the phone) would be a Vehicle
Compliance Officer or Inspector. You can find those at a DOT Scale. They
will (around here anyway) look up the pertinent section of the Act and photo
copy it for a person.

Brian