Except that they are illegal—Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 prohibits any kind of headlamp cover, even if it is nominally "clear". This prohibition is because even "clear" covers, films, plates, etc. substantially reduce the light reaching the road, and none of them are anything like sufficiently resistant to abrasion and UV damage; they very quickly degrade and defocus the beam. You and whoever else runs your shop are responsible for deciding how much liability you can afford to expose your shop to, but please keep in mind that on this board
Rule 11 prohibits advocating illegal activity.
The plastic headlamp lens situation is a mess; the regulations for lens durability are obviously nowhere near stringent enough, and I don't see a fix coming any time soon. But pretty much all the aftermarket headlamp "restoration" and "protection" ideas are no good.
I wasn't aware that they were illegal there. Certainly not here, they are sold as new car accessories and are readily available in just about every auto parts shop. We don't recommend illegal accessories, in fact refuse to fit or modify if this might contravene the regulations. Our recommendations to our customers are well within the law.
With respect to my previous post I add that "this is a solution only where local regulations permit".
While regulations are, in many respects, similar from country to country, there are differences and Rule 11 doesn't quite allow for such. Taken literally, I can discuss headlight covers and other things, but you cannot. Conversely, you can discuss red rear indicators which are strictly illegal here. There are differences even between the USA and Canada.
I don't want to take this thread off topic but this is an international forum and, provided it is understood that some things may not be legal in all jurisdictions, the discussion of such topics does not contravene Rule 11, subject to the caveat that the discussion is restricted to the application and use in such areas where those activities are legal. To do otherwise would be parochial in the extreme and begs the question of the level to which such narrow-mindedness would be applied. Certainly laws vary from State to State in the USA and even between more local jurisdictions. Would Rule 11 be applied, for example, to prohibit discussion because the topic happened to be contrary to regulations in the particular jurisdiction in which CPF is based? I'd suggest (and hope) this would not be the case, that the intent was not for such stringent application and that a more adult approach would be taken.
In fact, Rule 11 goes a little further than this, stating that "
you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly illegal or promotes illegal activity". This does not prohibit the discussion of such material (we do both live in societies which permit free speech) but does prohibit the posting of material which in itself is illegal. I would think that pornography might be an example of such (even though it is actually legal here, but with restrictions on distribution). I should point out also that the key word is "knowingly".
The second part of Rule 11 (that I've quoted) prohibits the promotion of illegal activity. Thus the discussion of same is not prohibited, just the promotion of it. For example, discussion of HID "kits" is not prohibited when this is restricted to the technical aspects, but the recommendation to instal or use one in a headlight is. Now, if my understanding of US law is correct, it is illegal to import and sell such a kit (even the individual components), but is not illegal to own one or to use it in a torch, for example. So, free discussion of HID bulbs, their specification, technical aspects and even use in a torch is freely permitted in other parts of CPF despite the fact that such bulbs are capable of being fitted to a motor vehicle and, in so doing, rendering the light "inoperative" under FMVSS 108. Exactly the same may be said of LED's. I'd think that the broad restriction of discussion on both of these topics would result in some very unhappy members, at the least.
In summary, Rule 11 does not prohibit me from discussing acrylic headlight covers, nor does it prevent me from promoting their use in a jurisdiction which permits their use. It does prevent me from promoting their use to a member who may be located where their use is in contravention to local laws. The solution to this apparent anomaly is to include the caveat "where permitted" in such promotion. In fairness, if Rule 11 were applied in my case then it would have to be applied with the same force to discussion and or promotion of materials/products/practices which might happen to be illegal where I live.
I'm not inviting discussion on this. I am, however, asking that members and moderators take what I've said on board and enter into discussion and permit, respectively, objective and healthy discussion on topics which have, in the past, been too rapidly locked. Always aware, of course, that there is a difference between discussion and promotion.
Back on topic. Yes, plastic headlamp lenses are certainly not the panacea that they were thought be be. Safer, perhaps, in some instances and definitely lighter, the problem of lens degradation remains unsolved by most manufacturers. In a sense that's good for my business, not so good for the consumer. We will continue to seek a longer term solution to the continued degradation after refurbishment and I'll be happy to pass on any significant advances we make in this area and anything that I might happen to come across that might be useful to other members here.