|
|
|
Apparel safety standards
- Thread starter TK4
- Start date
Yikes. Just looking at those gloves you know they suck. Palm needs to be able to stand up to a slide under pressure. That probably means leather. Those just look like mechanics gloves with knuckle armor.
EDIT:
From the amazon side, the level of effort needed is trivial. They could make listed PPE post the compliance cert with the listing. That makes looking up the certification easy for anyone that cares and wants to ensure it's valid. Amazon explicitly doesn't want to do this. They know that their site is full of crap and forgeries but those are very profitable and high volume items. If they can get away with pretending they have no obligations to police the items they sell, they have more profit and less expenses.
EDIT:
From the amazon side, the level of effort needed is trivial. They could make listed PPE post the compliance cert with the listing. That makes looking up the certification easy for anyone that cares and wants to ensure it's valid. Amazon explicitly doesn't want to do this. They know that their site is full of crap and forgeries but those are very profitable and high volume items. If they can get away with pretending they have no obligations to police the items they sell, they have more profit and less expenses.
Last edited:
Unless things have changed, when you go to any motorcycle show in Southern Ontario you'll always find the "Brampton Leather" Crew selling questionable products. If an actual motorcycle show has no interest in vetting it's vendors then we have no hope for Amazon. It'll always be profit over protection when it comes to low end gear.
Why just low end gear? Arai helmets have failed performance tests before. Every level of gear is a quest for profit. Like fishing lures, lots of money is spent on design and packaging to draw people in. The performance is normally almost an afterthought as you already have their money.
This is slightly tangential, but it also brings to mind how it's not that easy to figure out if a helmet's ECE 22.05/06 certification is real or not
I'm speaking of low end gear to keep on topic, as the OP was showcasing low end gear from Amazon.
But yes, the same can be said about any questionable product regards of the price tag.
The difference is that Brampton Leather presumably hasn't even bothered to put the EN/CE markings on their stuff, so they're not making an explicit claim of protective properties. Even if they did, there's no legal requirement for motorcycle gear in Canada to meet any PPE standards, aside from helmets. So there are no legal ramifications to that here, unless someone could get a general false-advertising claim to stick.
But in Europe you legally can't claim something has protective properties without meeting the relevant PPE standard, and those reviewed gloves had the EN/CE markings on them. They would have been fine if they'd marketed them as fashion garments, which they effectively are. The falsified markings make this a situation where theoretically someone in the Amazon -> vendor chain could have legal action taken against them. Amazon has a fleet of lawyers to dodge that responsibility, and the vendor will simply disappear and reappear under a different name, though.
But in Europe you legally can't claim something has protective properties without meeting the relevant PPE standard, and those reviewed gloves had the EN/CE markings on them. They would have been fine if they'd marketed them as fashion garments, which they effectively are. The falsified markings make this a situation where theoretically someone in the Amazon -> vendor chain could have legal action taken against them. Amazon has a fleet of lawyers to dodge that responsibility, and the vendor will simply disappear and reappear under a different name, though.
Was not about the gear so much as the company/venue selling it and the lack of attentiveness. As indicated in @GreyGhost reply.
Relax
Well-known member
Got any links?
Here's the original one I found. 2006-2009 helmets had some labelling failures (I don't care about those) and some performance failures (I have a huge problem with those). I haven't looked to see if there is more recent data showing issues (nor if all recent data passes).
EDIT:
NHTSA has an equipment database where you can look things up.
Compliance Test Report Search | Vehicles & Equipment
Search NHTSA’s compliance test report database specific to vehicles, car seats, tires, motorcycle helmets and more.
TK4
Well-known member
There is the sticker on the back AND a sewn in label on one of the straps. If it doesn't have both it's a fake.
Neither of those things proves that it's real
Many of the tricks let you quickly spot a bad fake. Proving something is real is a far harder task. Ideally, there would be an easily searchable database (like NHTSA has for helmets). At least that proves that a helmet with that make and model passed. You still have work to do to determine if the one in your hands is genuine or a fraud.
Right, I didn't mean to conflate two separate problems - counterfeit products, and fraudulent certifications. I mean that it is challenging to get your hands on the paperwork proving that any given helmet is actually ECE certified.
And of course, the NHTSA database is nice, but it is by nature incomplete. Those would be the results of random spot checks.
Without restarting any helmet standards arguments, it is nice that Snell publishes a comprehensive list of certified models
And of course, the NHTSA database is nice, but it is by nature incomplete. Those would be the results of random spot checks.
Without restarting any helmet standards arguments, it is nice that Snell publishes a comprehensive list of certified models
The one's we saw have 0% leather, on the palm which means they can't even be used for the parking lot course.
Does polyester melt into road rash during a slide?
There are leather gardening gloves from CDN tire/Walmart/Marks etc. that wear better.
Haven't tried it with helmets, but if there is a CE marking, the vendor has to make the underlying declaration of conformity available, and that document has to identify who's responsible and what the basis for their declaration is. If there is an independent testing lab involved, they have to be identified. If there's a NoBo (notified body - basically a company that looks after these declarations) they have to be identified.
Yes, this is not something a normal retail customer is going to do, which is why the FIM is going to a scannable code that links to the supporting documents.
Before I retired, if someone used a questionable component in a safety-related application, "show me the declaration of conformity for that" was usually enough to make them fix it... the shady made-you-know-where stuff would have the (forged) consumer-facing marking, but usually no DoC. If it had a DoC it wouldn't reference appropriate supporting documents.
|
|
|
|
|