How protected are we??
Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:29 pm
In the August edition of Superbike (it's an english mag....I get it electronically on Zinio much much cheaper and earlier then buying it...basically I get 12 issues for the price of one mag here...only problem is it's net based...but I don't mind ) they talk about protective gear and European standards. What's interesting is that it appears that alot, if not all, big name European manufacturers, do not meet their own standards .
Here is some retyped exerpts:
"Most of us assume that our biking kit would save our skin in a crash.
But how confident can we be?
Even though European stabdards have been established, most manufacturers refuse to comply.
What are they afraid of?
The Personal Protective Equipement (PPE) Directive, which became law on June 30 1995, makes it illegal for a manufacturere or distributor to market non-approved motorcycle clothing as protective equipement.
In the eyes of the law, there are only two types of clothing: protective (i.e. CE-approved) and non-approved.
When the law came into effect, most manufacturers chose to ignore it and refused to fall into line. In spite of the legislation, many of these makers continue to make bold claims about the protectiveness of their garments.
This leads to consumer uncertainy and masks the distinction between claimed protectiveness and against actual measured performance. If you buy a non-approved suit, for instance, there is no quarantee that it will withstand a skirmish with the tarmac. No one would buy an unstamped helmet, so why should we have a lower expectation for clothing?
A great deal of hard work has been done to establish workable test standards. The British Standards Institution (BSI) working along side Cambridge University and notified body SATRE, contributed eight draft product standards, covering jackets, trousers, one and two-piece suits, gloves and boots, to the European Standards Committee. The standard specified two levels of protection; level 1 clothing should provide adequate protection at urban speeds up to 30mph (80KM/H), level 2 clothing should provide protection at higher speeds but subsequently need repair. The original UK proposal also specified level 3, which should withstand multiple accidents, but this class was deleted after a group of Continemtal manufacturers lobbied in opposition."
* Armour
The PPE directive position on armour is very tight. All protectors must be CE-approved. Therefore, if clothing carries a CE label, it often relates only to the armour. Don't make the mistake of assuming the whole garment is approved. Approved garments must be fully labelled with information about how, where and by whom they were tested.
Then there was silence
We contacted several leading manufacturers to ask why their garments are not CE-approved. At the time of going to print, none of them had submitted a reponse.
Here is some retyped exerpts:
"Most of us assume that our biking kit would save our skin in a crash.
But how confident can we be?
Even though European stabdards have been established, most manufacturers refuse to comply.
What are they afraid of?
The Personal Protective Equipement (PPE) Directive, which became law on June 30 1995, makes it illegal for a manufacturere or distributor to market non-approved motorcycle clothing as protective equipement.
In the eyes of the law, there are only two types of clothing: protective (i.e. CE-approved) and non-approved.
When the law came into effect, most manufacturers chose to ignore it and refused to fall into line. In spite of the legislation, many of these makers continue to make bold claims about the protectiveness of their garments.
This leads to consumer uncertainy and masks the distinction between claimed protectiveness and against actual measured performance. If you buy a non-approved suit, for instance, there is no quarantee that it will withstand a skirmish with the tarmac. No one would buy an unstamped helmet, so why should we have a lower expectation for clothing?
A great deal of hard work has been done to establish workable test standards. The British Standards Institution (BSI) working along side Cambridge University and notified body SATRE, contributed eight draft product standards, covering jackets, trousers, one and two-piece suits, gloves and boots, to the European Standards Committee. The standard specified two levels of protection; level 1 clothing should provide adequate protection at urban speeds up to 30mph (80KM/H), level 2 clothing should provide protection at higher speeds but subsequently need repair. The original UK proposal also specified level 3, which should withstand multiple accidents, but this class was deleted after a group of Continemtal manufacturers lobbied in opposition."
* Armour
The PPE directive position on armour is very tight. All protectors must be CE-approved. Therefore, if clothing carries a CE label, it often relates only to the armour. Don't make the mistake of assuming the whole garment is approved. Approved garments must be fully labelled with information about how, where and by whom they were tested.
Then there was silence
We contacted several leading manufacturers to ask why their garments are not CE-approved. At the time of going to print, none of them had submitted a reponse.
