No CE approved gloves - RIDE article

And you'd know how...?

 

Note that I said 'may be' not 'will be'.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Believe me, it is peanuts compared to their retailer hospitality
budgets. And the price differential to take a "caveat emptor" product
up to "Conformite Europeen" spec will be pennies, given the purchasing
power of the major brands. Also, the £2100 is a front end cost which
will be amortized across possibly tens of thousands of gloves sold
globally per annum.

Which is precisely what I have said before. There *are* some very good
"caveat emptor" products out there, but the average consumer might have
difficulty distinguishing between good, bad and indifferent. Another
comment posted here previously is that the Nomadic purchasing policies
of the major brands can result in this year's good subcontract supplier
being replaced for next season by a factory that is sytill learning its
craft. The CE mark is the only guaranteed indicator that a product has
been designed and tested to stand up to a crash.

And, no offence taken!

 

No it won't, if they include all gloves made from the same basic
materials as a "family" of products. Price to get one model of glove
approved: £2100. Price for ten models: £2100. Price for 20 models:
£2100. the more models approved, the greater the number of gloves sold
across which to amortize development, testing and certification costs.
The major brands have developmental budgets (which appear to focus on
aesthetics), so all they would be doing is spending the same money in a
different area.

 

I'm the first to admit that my logical reasoning is on par with a
mentalist so speak slowly for me. My question is what implicit or
explicit logic in Ace's statement above would or even could lead you to
believe that non CE approved kit might be better? Unless you've been in
the unfortunate position of personally testing 2 comparable items under
similar situations the only information you have is that they
presumably both passed certain minimum protection requirements and that
one is CE approved, and we are currently accepting that CE approved
means very little.

Surely, using this logic that you speak of, "very little" is slightly
higher than "none". So where exactly is the value in diminishing the CE
tests, and also the Dire's tests, to absolute zero? And is this
associated with the "You're a bit of a wanker if you use protective
gear when riding a bike" school of thought that is so enjoyed by those
of a certain age, with a penchant for denim?

 

Following the basic logic through it works like this:

* CE approval is not a guarantee of quality, nor is it the
ne-plus-ultra of garment construction. It's just a minimum standard
for the safety elements of a garment.
* Some CE approved products may have been designed solely to meet the
testing criteria, so may have quality issues r even safety ones, in
areas which are not tested.
* Some small scale manufacturers, for example a bespoke leather
manufacturer, may not have the resources, or indeed inclination, to go
through the CE testing process.
* The lack of said testing in no way supposess that their products are
of inferior design, quality or safety performance.
* It's entirely possible, therefore, that their products may be of a
higher quality and better design with safety performance superior to
their CE-approved cousins.

No. Theres no such assumption onnon-approced kit.

Are we? That was the main point I was putting across. If you're
agreeing with that then what are you arguing with?

Who's doing this? I'm certainly not suggesting that there's no value
in CE approval.

You're a wanker anyway, whether you use protective kit or not. But
then you knew that.

BTW that cold southern winter seems to have rotted your brain.
--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

That's a distinct possibility. However if you'd just like to take a
step or two back to where I asked you to explain *how* a consumer would
be able to tell whether a non-CE approved piece of kit was superior to
a CE approved piece of kit (and Champ helpfully replied "with logic "it
would be appreciated.

 

Manufacturers of CE approved kit are required to have a quality control
system in place (Article 11 of the PPE Directive). Manufacturers of
"caveat emptor" products face no such requirement.

On "minimum standard", it is true that a number of products have been
tested which vastly outperform the requirements of the standard. RiDE
reported that an industry meeting will take place to discuss a dilution
of the standards' requirements. RiDE have since informed me that this
move is being proposed and backed by... Italian motorcycle clothing
brands! For some, "minimum" is still too high, too hard to achieve...

See above.

Incorrect. The very first companies to achieve CE approval for their
products were the following bespoke manufacturers: BKS, Crowtree, MW,
Hideout. Even ZAK leathers (run single-handedly by one of my former
employees) has gone through the process. On boot approval, Richmond, N.
Yorks based manufacturer Alt-Berg beat industry giants such as BMW,
Hein Gericke and AlpineStars to CE approval by almost ten years!

I still find it surreal that AlpineStars' fabric karting suits have
been tested and approved, using the same tests through which CE
approved motorcycle clothing is put, yet AlpineStars' leather
motorcycling suits have not been through the same process.

Entirely possible, maybe (and I have said as much in previous threads)
but can they prove it? IMO, however, caveat emptor products often fall
down (no pun intended) on retention and design criteria.

 

Your wording was, at best, ambiguous. You asked me how I would know,
which I, and presumably Champ, read as meaning "How does Bruce know
that some non-approved kit might be better than some approved kit". I
presume from this post that your response was meant to read as "How
would a consumer be able to tell uf his non-approved kit was as good
as, or better than, approved stuff?".

Well, caveat emptor is the answer - sure, if the buyer is unable to
judge things for himself, or have others' opinions to fall back on,
the approved mark gives him a level of security that what he's buying
wil perform as expected. But I was simply positing that
CE-approved != better.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Well no, it's not. I didn't say none of them would, just that some
might not. I know of at least one such wot I bought mine from in
Germany.

Yes, I know you have. I was only going through the logic flow for, the
apparently hard-of-thinking, porl.

Aye, I'd not argue otherwise. Although I'm verr pleased with my
Schwabenleder stuff, but thankfully haven't put it to the ultimate
test.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Of course but where does "possible" get us in practical terms for
someone looking for concrete, real world solutions? Or even
hypothetical ones?

Which seems to lead us back to CE approved is better than none-approved
ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (because if your beginning proposition is that
you're comparing hypothetically quality none-CE approved and crappy
CE-approved it gets us and the OP precisely 10 degrees north of
nowhere). I don't think it's my logic that is flawed here...

 

You seem to be arguing against a point that no-one was making. So I
guess it must be your comprehension that's at fault, rather than your
logic.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Why would I give a rat's arse what you think you're capable of deducing
in terms of safety requirements in comparison to the OP who obviously
isn't hence the question? 1, Your experience is subjective, 2, your
conclusions might be flawed and 3, you have a demonstrably inhumanly
high opinion of yourself in pretty much every aspect of your life,
which, by the way, if justified makes your experience even more
untouchably subjective and unsharable.

*snigger*

 

You set your stall out here (below) . Where's the objectivity? I simply
asked how you could tell the difference without using CE as a guide, a
process that- if it existed- would be of some use to the OP. I was also
indirectly backed up by the other Paul. The fact you've decided to fold
like a pack of cards has more bearing on your lack of argument than my
comprehension. But feel free to agree to differ.

 

Goddamn it. Where's Simian?

Ok I'm getting suspicious now. That's what Ace pretty much just posted
as well. If you and he are actually reading from the same cue card just
how close are you two getting?

Rascist!

 

Which I stick by. I wasn't in any way suggesting that buying non
CE-approved kit was somehow a better option, just that it isn't
necessarily worse.

But as I've said, that was not, in fact, the question you asked. Had
you done so this sub-thread wouldn't have developed.

Yeah, right. Just because you've decided to retrospectively change the
question you were asking doesn't mean you've somehow won the argument,
you know.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

About, <guesses> oh, 900 miles or so.


--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

No point, it's all shite.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

***Quote

***End Quote

Looks pretty much exactly like that's the question I asked.

*You* are.

 

Does it? I suggest you study up on your English a bit then. Without
any other context, it's quite clearly referring to the last statement
I made, and is therefore asking me how _I_ know that non-CE kit may be
better.

Your mother.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`