By: David A Williams, Auto Collision Repair Specialist and DV Expert
Published: Sep 19, 2007 - 11:13:32 AM Last Reviewed:

Confession: If you are one of the many who believe post repair inspectors get some perverse pleasure out of finding and documenting shoddy repairs, you would be right - I know I do! While I won't attempt to speak for auto inspectors everywhere, I know many personally and can tell you that many of the men and women who do what I do are driven, just as I am, to find the bad stuff that's been covered up. It's almost like a game where shops pit their ability to screw up and hide it against the ability of post repair inspectors to find flaws and document them.

If I were filing out a grade card on the collision repair industry based on repairs I've examined, I'd give it an "F." Shops fail miserably at returning cars to their true preloss condition. Truth is, most times, they don't even come close to repairing cars in the detailed fashion recommended by auto manufacturers.

In a previous BodyShop Business magazine article "Nine Steps to Protect Your Shop From DV Claims" (Sept 2006) I exposed the enormity of the problem of poor quality repairs and the fact that its berth is spread across the country from one end to the other.

"After nearly a decade of performing post-repair inspections in Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia, I've seen only two jobs of noteworthy quality among the hundreds I've viewed. In the south, Florida's Peter Bartlett, Ph.D., has seen fewer than that. Even though he has been performing auto inspections since long before I was taking solid food, Bartlett says he can't remember evaluating any collision-damaged cars that were repaired as well as they could have been repaired.

For West Coast DV specialist Rocco Avellini, who has inspected more than 2,000 vehicles, the total number of high-quality repairs he has seen just broke double digits. Another left coaster, Washington's Mike Harbor of CrashTalk fame, upon nearing 700 inspections, reports seeing proper repairs about one time in every 100 inspections. This is a number agreed upon by several other DV specialists with whom I inquired.

Considering these statistics, it's my opinion and the opinion shared by most post-repair inspectors (PRIs) that shops' practice of putting out slothful repairs is commonplace regardless of geography.

As pathetic as I find repairs on crash damaged vehicles, I wondered what an auto manufacturer's product design specialist would think if he/she had the opportunity to scrutinize collision repair work from an engineering prospective. Or a reconstuctionist - What grade would experts in this profession give the work of the collision repair industry?

AUTO SAFETY EXPERT, BYRON BLOCH Based on his many investigations of rollover accident vehicles, Bloch believes that side windows should be of laminated glass rather than tempered, which easily shatters and allows occupant ejection. In this rollover case involving an SUV, Bloch notes the tempered glass had shattered out and also had a minimal retention system that had failed, allowing a young girl to be ejected onto the road and be severely injured. Visit website of Byron Bloch

How about an auto safety expert with knowledge enough to take to task even the largest and most powerful of auto manufacturers?

Auto safety expert Byron Bloch discusses auto repair Industry practices

Enter, Byron Bloch, a man whose passion for auto safety was intrigued during the hearings that led to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, through which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was formed. It was a time of great concern for the rising death toll on the nation's roads when President Johnson told the American Trial Lawyers Association that the 48,000 highway deaths, (numbers available from 1964) were second only to the Vietnam War as the "gravest problem before the nation."

Inspired by the likes of Ralph Nader who also came into prominence at this time with his new and controversial book, " Unsafe At Any Speed," Bloch began ramping up to voice his own concerns and he hasn't stopped since. He has been holding car manufacturers accountable for their screw ups and defects for more than four decades.

Bloch's resume is impressive. He has testified in Congressional hearings and to the (NHTSA). He has appeared as a safety consultant on mainstream television programs such as ABC News' 20/20, Primetime Live, Nightline, CBS News' 60 Minutes, Public Eye and NBC News' Dateline NBC. He has lectured at colleges across the nation and taught a university seminar series on auto safety. He served as research editor for Road Test magazine, and has qualified repeatedly since 1971 as an expert in both state and federal courts in automotive defective design cases.

Says Bloch:

"I've fought for compassion and increased safety in the design of our vehicles ... to eliminate defective designs that cause needless injury. And if someone is severely injured or killed in a crash, I analyze their vehicle to determine what may be unsafe and defective, and then work toward bringing some measure of justice for that individual and their family."

If you ask this champion of consumer rights what his biggest regret is he will tell you with a sigh that there have been too many accidents and too many victim's lives damaged and destroyed. Change in the auto industry takes too long.

What does auto safety expert, Byron Bloch think of the collision repair industry's work product and the accountability that shops may one day have to face for their own defects and screw ups? I posed this question to him and many more. We talked at length on a variety of subjects and nothing was off-limits.

Properly repaired automobiles exhibit characteristics of strength and weakness

To begin, Bloch brought his technical savvy to the table, explaining for the benefit of collision repair shops that it takes a combination of both strength and weakness in automobiles to make them perform admirably when crashed.

"The vehicle body is designed with torsional strength (that is the twisting of a vehicle body around its longitudinal axis) and also with beam strength (which is, again, the flexing of the body, but this time it's as if you hold the front axle and flex the rear axle one up and down). Typically these strengths are measured in resistive pounds of force over the angle and twist of the body, whether it is the torsional twist, its deflection, or beam strength twist. Additionally, the front and rear of a vehicle are designed with crush zones or crumple zone to cause a predictable fold of the body in a collision."

"Conversely, side impacts needs stiffness and strength to minimize intrusion into the passenger compartment. In a rollover situation, roof strength comes into play in a similar manner to reduce the amount of penetration or intrusion downward and laterally into the cabin survival space. To sum up, a vehicle has to be designed for torsional strength, for beam strength, for front crush zone, for rear crush zone, and for stiffness and strength in side impacts and rollovers. This is the foundation shops need to understand."

"Would it be fair to say then that a crash repair should take all these factors into consideration?"  I asked.

"Absolutely!" said Bloch. "A collision shop MUST, with no exceptions, take into account that when a vehicle begins its life it is designed and tested by the auto manufacturer to ensure that it has sufficient torsional strength, sufficient beam strength, sufficient crush zone performance for the front and the rear, and sufficient stiffness and strength for side impact and rollover roof crush protection. That cannot be compromised, weakened or deteriorated in the course of repairs that a collision shop performs"

Auto repair shops place themselves at risk  when their work leaves vehicles noncompliant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

The federal government through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ((NHTSA) - acronym pronounced as "nitsa") sets federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) which are MINIMAL performance standards manufacturers must adhere to when building cars. Bloch, who isn't impressed with the FMVSS standards because he feels they are too weak, says automakers typically design their vehicles for a margin of performance above the minimum level required by the federal government. Oftentimes, he adds, manufacturers "design vehicles to perform twenty percent above the minimum requirement, but some automakers go as much as twice or two hundred percent of the minimal FMVSS requirement."

Bloch cautions:

"A vehicle that is being repaired should conform to at least the performance designed into the vehicle at its inception in order to comply with all of the federal motor vehicle safety standards."

I countered Bloch's comments about compliance to FMVSS by reminding him that the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not specifically apply to repair shops, but rather to manufacturers only.

Bloch admitted I was correct but added:

"On the B-Pillar or on the back edge of the driver's door you'll see a sticker or plate that officially and legally certifies that a particular vehicle as manufactured fully complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. If a repair shop compromises the vehicle's ability to similarly conform to the FMVSS, that could put a liability risk upon the collision repair shop for weakening or compromising what would otherwise be a vehicle in full compliance to the FMVSS."

When a shop performs its work haphazardly and compromises a car's ability to comply with the minimal FMVSS, shops don't often brag about the shortcomings, and notice of such is rarely provided to a car's occupants. Vehicle owners often find out just how compromised their car's safety systems are when they need them in a subsequent crash.

AUTO SAFETY EXPERT, BYRON BLOCH Since the mid-1960's, Bloch has inspected collision damaged vehicles coast-to-coast. He then conducts an analysis of the vehicle's structure and design to determine whether "safety defects" contributed to or caused a crash. He has also testified as a court-qualified auto safety expert in numerous product liability trials across the nation.

Bloch says the crash performance of clipped cars depends on the quality of the clip itself, what portions of a vehicle are damaged and replaced, and of course, workmanship. But, he says there is a bigger question:

"How does one verify or validate that such an extensively repaired vehicle really is restored to its full level of crashworthiness protection for all manner of collisions -  front impact, rear impact, side impact and rollover  when, literally, even the parts used to repair [the car] have been traumatized and possibly weakened in previous accidents?"

"It's an extremely difficult question to answer because it is literally impossible to now take the vehicle - which may consist of 3/4 of Vehicle A and 1/4 of Vehicle B, joined together to form new Vehicle C - and know it will perform appropriately in front, rear, side and rollover types of accidents that may occur a year or two after repairs have been performed."

Shops performing work that alters a vehicle's design or weakens it in any way may find themselves explaining their actions to a judge and jury - maybe even the family of a quadriplegic. Bloch has seen it too often:

"Shops involvement would be weighed under what we call product liability laws. Product liability laws, in essence, state that the manufacturer of a product (in this case a vehicle) can be held legally liable for the injuries and damages that may be caused by a defect in the design or manufacture of that product. So, if the original injured plaintiff, the quadriplegic or family of a fatally injured, has sued an auto manufacturer, the automaker (to protect its own interests when it's discovered that the vehicle had been significantly repaired) will then track down and name the collision repair shop as a third-party defendant. The car company would argue that if it had not been for the shoddy repair to the vehicle the car would have performed in a safer manner and the person would not have been killed, paralyzed, or severely brain damaged. The car company will seek to transfer at least a portion of that liability if not all of it to the repair shop on the allegation that the repairs weakened the crashworthiness of the vehicle. By the way, crashworthiness refers to how well a vehicle can protect the driver and passengers in a collision accident, whether it is front impact, side impact, rear impact or rollover type of accident."

Generic auto repair procedures and technician experience are usually unacceptable substitutes for auto manufacturer's repair plans

I asked Bloch if he saw generic repair procedures such as the Uniform Procedures for Collision Repair (UPCR) as an acceptable substitute to the manufacturers methods of repairing a car? His answer?

"No, I wouldn't because I think you have to work very closely with the manufacturers and look at the documentation that they themselves put out. I'll give you an example: When Ford and GM sell their cab and chassis units to body builders they have very strict standards and requirements that they provide in rather large books showing how to properly build and install the body to complete the vehicle. And, it is not a stretch at all to say that collision repair shops are in a sense like body and coach builders. So, the standards, guidelines, recommendations, the how-to manuals are there to make sure vehicles are brought up to full crashworthiness standards in addition to beam strength, torsional strength and other aspects designed into the body - the foundation that we discussed earlier"

"How about the repairer that says, 'I've been fixing cars for 30 years and I know how to make a car safe without a dadgum manual,' and they wing it based on their own experiences rather than using manufacturer's guidelines for proper repairs?" I asked. "What would you say to that repair technician?"

"There is something positive to be said for having savviness that comes from extensive repair experience. But, as vehicle technologies have progressed there are, for example, crush zones designed into the vehicle that are purposely supposed to crush in a certain manner, not allowing intrusion into the passenger compartment. Its not just a matter of strength; there must be concern for the load path in a crash so that forces are directed and distributed throughout other portions of the vehicle. In offset frontal crashes these might include the front body structures, structural members along the sides of the passenger compartment, subframe members, rocker sections and more."

"If a savvy repair person looks at a vehicle and says 'I know how to make it stronger and stiffer,' that may in a crashworthiness sense aggravate the ability of a front or rear crush zone to fully perform its work."

"Now for side impact and roof strength, stronger typically is better. For example, adding an internal or external reinforcement or gusset plates where the windshield pillars meet the windshield header and the roof side rails may actually make a car safer by making it stronger, offering more protection so the roof won't buckle and crush down in a rollover accident. Here's a case where strengthening a vehicle would be an advantage, whereas strengthening frontal or rear structures that compromises crush zones from doing their maximum work is sort of contradictory to manufacturer's designs."

Bloch believes cars could be made better and he has campaigned for it for years. He believes experienced technicians could in some cases make repairs that improve cars.

AUTO SAFETY EXPERT, BYRON BLOCH Beginning back in the 1960's and 1970's, Bloch had inspected many vehicles that had been in rear impact fire accidents, and he observed that too many vehicles had their fuel tank vulnerably located within the rear "crush zone". In 1975, he re-designed the fuel tank system of a full-size Ford, with his design for a forward-of-axle fuel tank system that was then able to survive a 63-mph rear impact offset crash test. After the crash test, Bloch then turned the vehicle on its side to further inspect the fuel tank system. Over the years, he advocated that automakers should move the fuel tank to the safer forward-of-axle location, which most vehicles have adopted.

But many technicians don't possess the knowledge to make judgment calls that involve an automobile's structure. Besides, insurers likely wouldn't pay for the improvement anyway, so most times it just makes good common sense for a shop to err on the side of caution by following manufacturer's repair procedures.

Shops also need to find out if when they ignore a manufacturer's auto repair plan, opting for one of their own based on experience, if their own liability insurance will stand behind them on judgment calls.

Bloch says that all too often insurers make claims decisions based on price alone, which does not assure the quality and integrity of the repairs being done as sufficiently as they should be. He believes insurers should be regulated at both the state and federal levels and that their payment to consumers should include ample funds so that shops can track down hidden damage that has traveled throughout a car's structure rather than repairing visual damage only in the area of direct impact.

Byron Bloch's view of insurance company involvement in auto collision repair 

"I think insurance companies should be encouraged by stronger regulations to fully support safer repairs that collision repair specialists think should be done rather than the bare-bones cheapest minimal type of repair they think they can get away paying for."

I told Byron that I found it interesting that in court cases insurers often go in with testimony claiming they are NOT the experts; they are only there to pay the bill. Yet many times insurers won't listen to the opinion that true collision repair experts offer them.

Says Bloch:

 "I think that's correct. Insurance companies often try to beg off and say they just look at estimates and pay bills. Assuming that the estimates are all equivalent and provided by competent collision repair specialists, insurers choose the one that allows repairs to be performed most economically because they are profit driven enterprises. Well, I say they can't have it both ways. They have to be able to assess whether an estimate of cheap repairs comes because a shop is willing to skimp on safety to keep the bid low and remain favorable in the eyes of the insurer; and in the case of a higher bid from a collision repair specialist, whether it might encompass a more thorough and safe repair without regard for appeasing the insurer's quest for a low price or any favoritism it could bestow."

DRP shops discredit the auto collision repair industry.  Repair standards despirately needed

AUTO SAFETY EXPERT, BYRON BLOCH has issues with the fact that aftermarket parts, including CAPA Certified parts, are not crash tested. Click the image to hear his thoughts on the importance of choosing OEM replacement sheetmetal parts after a crash that allows vehicles to remain in full compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. BLOCH ON AFTERMARKET PARTS AND CAPA - text version

Not surprisingly, Bloch isn't a fan of direct repair. He believes that deals made behind consumer's backs that limit their choices and encourage cheap low quality repairs do a disservice not only to the consumer, but to the auto repair industry as well.

Bloch feels that auto collision businesses need a self-governing body that will take the initiative to speak out on the industry's behalf, encourage legislation, police members, train and recruit technicians and make policy that will guide shops and technicians into the future. Bloch believes this body could share information with NHTSA and bring to the table issues that affect the reparability of cars.

He also believes the auto collision repair industry needs standards. Not a static set, but rather standards of the evolving, growing type that develop, mature and expand. "The standards," he says, "must be, at least, where they don't compromise or jeopardize the full compliance of the vehicle to the FMVSS."

Bloch continues:

"The repair industry has to recognize that too many of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are so minimal and unrealistic to what happens in vehicle collision accidents that the liability risks are still out there for both the original automakers and those companies that do collision repairs, even when their work is in full compliance with the minimal FMVSS. Just to say that the repairs a business performed complies with the FMVSS often times is not a sufficient defense."

Bloch says the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards should be renamed the "Federal Motor Vehicle Bargain Basement Minimums."

"Referring to them as 'bargain basement minimums' is appropriate because most of them are twenty to thirty years old and obsolete. They no longer relate to what happens in real world collision accidents. At best they are ... minimal and very unrealistic, well behind the level of the state of the art that could be implemented in our mass produced vehicles," he says.

The auto repair industry needs to police its own members and expose unscrupulous repair shops

Interestingly, Bloch feels that repairers and shop personnel have an obligation to blow the whistle on repairers and shops that fail to perform their work safely. "It is supported in law," he says.

"The manufacturer has the obligation to report what MAY BE a safety related defect. Similarly, if those in the collision repair industry have reason to suspect that there may be a safety related problem or defect, they should notify all appropriate parties."

Bloch says the governing body he suggested should also include a collision repair safety institute to which individual shop and repairer issues and complaints could be brought to the attention of the institute and remedial and corrective measures taken.

"For repeated violations that are not corrected, maybe a shop would lose its certification from the collision repair safety institute or whatever it is named. Again, that's where those standards, training sessions and so on would emanate from. It's called making an industry more professional and having it self-regulate the practices and standards of its members."

"Is there a responsibility on the part of shops to educate consumers about shortcomings in a repair?" I asked. "In other words, if a repair shop sees the poor work of another shop, what obligation do they have to the consumer at that point?"

"They should bring it out into the open saying, 'this repair looks like it's been skimped on or improperly performed and here's why.'  We're talking about a very serious subject, particularly when we're talking about something that could either cause a motor vehicle collision accident or in the course of a collision accident result in the crashworthiness of a vehicle being compromised. It could very well be a life and death issue! I support full disclosure and all items - the good, the bad, and the ugly - being brought to the consumer's attention."

Greatest challenge facing auto collision repair shops

What does Bloch think will be the greatest challenges  faced by auto collision repair shops in the coming decade?

"To have competent repair specialists that are well trained, and that have the ethics to want to do the most competent, safe repair job AND have the full support of insurance companies to encourage that to take place."

Will it happen? It's up to each of us to do our part and blow the whistle on those who don't. And, if it gives you some perverse pleasue ... Enjoy it! You'll be providing a valuable service to your industry and consumers it serves.

content & design 2002-2008 David Williams and SafeCollisionRepairs.com

About Safe Collision Repairs

For more than ten years, David Williams of Wheelersburg, Ohio's Safe Collision Repairs has worked with consumers and attorneys in the tri-states of Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia to expose unsafe auto repairs and maximize recovery on auto insurance claims. Some of the company's services include Post-Repair Inspections, Prepurchase Inspections, Auto Damage Assessments, Lemon Law Investigations, Expert Court Testimony and Diminished Value Calculations using an advanced version of Network Information Communication's WreckCheck program.

Inquiries can be directed to: Safe Collision Repairs David A. Williams Post Office Box 70 Wheelersburg, Ohio 45694 (740) 456-1111 (740) 355-4056

Disclaimer

The content expressed on this website and in the article above represents the opinions of David A. Williams. Williams is neither an attorney nor public insurance adjuster, but is an expert, consultant, and writer specializing in the field of automotive collision repair and valuations. The information provided herein is not intended to be a substitute for legal or insurance advice. Because collision repair is a continually evolving science, any text, materials or links found herein are provided without claim or guarantee to their accuracy or completeness.

DISCLAIMER

The content expressed on this website represents the opinions of David A. Williams. Williams is neither an attorney nor public insurance adjuster, but is an expert, consultant, and writer specializing in the field of automotive safety, collision repair and valuations. The information provided herein is not intended to be a substitute for legal or insurance advice. Because collision repair is a continually evolving science, any text, materials or links found herein are provided without claim or guarantee to their accuracy or completeness.

Advertisements seen on Safe Collision Repairs website must not to be considered endorsements of products or services as we maintain no relations with these companies. Vendors and service providers receiving our endorsement will be clearly identified by us on this website.