Re: Advice Required Re. Potentially Harmful Gloves
 

Worth looking at the point "impact protection", years ago kit came with hard panels, over time everyone realised it is better to absorb an impact than to transmit, or in this case concentrate one. Leading to modern hiprotec and the like armour, all soft and squishy.

Re: Advice Required Re. Potentially Harmful Gloves
 

Thats basically what I was saying to Dave earlier.... i`m pretty sure that hard armour or ill fitting armour has the potential to cause worse injury than an armour that is designed to absorb impact

Re: Advice Required Re. Potentially Harmful Gloves
 

Think about a suit of armour, one of those plates is great if there is a pointy thing coming at you, it will spread the impact.
However you would not want to hit a piece of plate armour side on...

Same example but with some squishy armour, hit it side on and the thickness is then effectively massive and you would receive next to no force.

Compromise with bike armour is good because for one thing leather is good at stopping pointy things, and you very rarely get hit with a pointy thing on the bike, mostly big impacts. No advantage to the force spreading/transmitting plate.

Dont say anything to the makers of the glove until you've collated the facts. What if you need to make a unforseen claim for compensation further down the line?... Yeah thats smart to let what could be the people you may sue have a head start. A lawyer would have kittens knowing you had told the defence. Think how bad that injury looks now and will it fully heal? Is there going to be a lifelong disability?

Gws.

Re: Advice Required Re. Potentially Harmful Gloves
 

A very valid point, however the labelling works the other way round - if it is PPE then you'll find the CE logo and a number on a label stitched to the garment. Unless the garment is labelled CE (PPE in effect) then it is not personal protective equipment and should not be advertised nor sold as such.

It may be worth getting a clued up lawyer to ponder this page and give a view on whether it qualifies as misleading:

http://www.rst-moto.com/index.php/pr...ce_glove_1569/

You'll note the word 'protection' is used a few times in their spiel. That's very dodgy ground when the garment cannot be advertised or sold as protective.

Basically, any garment not tested and rated as PPE is a bike style fashion garment. You can't call a garment protective no matter what materials or armour it has unless it has been approved as PPE and carries the CE logo. It's as simple as that.

Re: Advice Required Re. Potentially Harmful Gloves
 

I really didn't appreciate that on clothing.
Does good quality motorbike clothing, that you would reasonably consider offering protection, like leathers, armoured textiles, gloves, boots, generally have this CE rating then?
Or are all or just some manufacturers taking liberties with their descriptions?

Re: Advice Required Re. Potentially Harmful Gloves
 

A lot of decent quality leather is not CE rated, it costs money.

I am not sure whether CE rating of these gloves would cause a change in design, not sure what is in a glove CE test other than usual burst and abrasion tests.

Re: Advice Required Re. Potentially Harmful Gloves
 

Are any gloves CE rated?. I know jackets, lids and trousers are that contain protection, but I don't seem to have noticed if any gloves are.

I have some Wiese gloves that contain Knox protection, although Knox is marketed as pretty damn good stuff, as far as back protectors and other areas, but I don't recall seeing a CE marking on the gloves I have.

Re: Advice Required Re. Potentially Harmful Gloves
 

Halvarssons safety gloves

Edit: not power ranger approved ;)

Re: Advice Required Re. Potentially Harmful Gloves
 

Taken from the RST page:
"developed in BSB throughout the 2010 season by team RST riders Chris “Stalker” Walker, Andrew Pitt, Hudson Kennaugh and on the road by the RST development team, including multiple BSB champion Niall Mackenzie. "

They cant argue the "not for road use" really when its advertised as road tested. Did he sustain any other injuries than those to his hands Claire? if no then if you can prove the gloves were to blame then at the very least you'd expect to be able to claim loss of earnings. As Ralph wisly said thought I wouldnt be telling RST I'd be telling an injury claim specialist.

My concern is that if the accident really was a 20mph woopsie you'd not expect any damage at all.
My logic: Humans can run at approx 15mph, if you ran and tripped up landing on your hands you'd never expect to break both wrists/hands in 7 places. Following that logic then its the gloves and not the collision which actually caused the injury.