Glove laws, thank fook for Brexit :)
Discussion
WaferThinHam said:
Interesting that it mentioned "PPE" rather than CE certified.
You could argue that disposable filling station gloves are PPE, just not certified for motorcycle usage.
TLDR, what is "PPE" and what isn't.
It's here:You could argue that disposable filling station gloves are PPE, just not certified for motorcycle usage.
TLDR, what is "PPE" and what isn't.
"gants conformes à la réglementation relative aux équipements de protection individuelle."
So you need to refer to the PPE regs. The PPE regs are all about usage, they talk about resistance to physical, heat, chemical, electrical hazard. Gloves and other PPE are classified acording to the amount of protection they give you from the different sort of hazard. It's down to the user or if in work his employer to assess their suitability for the task at hand via, yes, a risk assessment. If I as an employer issue a chemical worker motorcycle gloves and he gets injured, I'll get done. Likewise vice versa. Whether the gear is suitable will of course if necessary be decided in the courts. So like someone else said, you can try wearing gloves for a totally different hazard and see how far you get with the judge.
(Clue: you have 2 hopes. One is Bob Hope.)
I'm not digging out the PPE regs, you can do your own homework. But it is out there. It won't spell it out for you and say "these gloves are OK for a bicycle, these are OK for a hammer and chisel, for a chainsaw you need these, and these others for a motorbike" because the law has to cover all activities and so you have to ensure that the user has selected something that can reasonably be expected to be effective when (for example) riding a motorcycle on unmade roads in winter conditions while wearing a pink dinosaur costume and carrying a pillion who weighs over 20 stones.
Ah, those old Rugby Club Christmas dos were a laugh.
But the law can't spell out all the possibilities for you, which is why the regs are framed as they are.
Anyone with H&S responsibility at work will tell you they deal with this all the time at work. There aren't always (in fact seldom are) rules laid out. At best you will get guidance. Follow that and you will *probably* do OK in a court if it all goes horribly wrong. However you can come up with something better, if you want. You can essentially do what the f** you like, provided you are prepared to justify your actions in a court.
Where this leaves the French motorcycle cops who routinely blat down French motorways at 160 kph wearing that well known piece of protective clothing "the short sleeved shirt with natty epaulettes" I don't know.
Condi said:
RemaL said:
A difficult one.
On one hand I don't want to be told all the time what I can and cannot do. Taking the choice out of my hands
But then again some of the darwin people need to be protected
But if I pop round to my mates, 2 mins up the road in a small town, I'll quite often just throw a helmet on. Is that qualifying for a Darwin award? Or is that just assessing the risk and deciding that it doesnt require anything other than the bare essentials as the chances of coming off are small and the chances of coming off at any speed are negligible? On one hand I don't want to be told all the time what I can and cannot do. Taking the choice out of my hands
But then again some of the darwin people need to be protected
As I posted I don't want peoples choice to be removed. We are having more and more regulations on what we can and cannot do.
But then again if someone wants to go out in shorts and tee it's their choice and skin.
personally I wear gloves all the time. leathers etc.. again my choice. If others want to pop to a mates with no gloves that's fine by me
battered said:
WaferThinHam said:
Interesting that it mentioned "PPE" rather than CE certified.
You could argue that disposable filling station gloves are PPE, just not certified for motorcycle usage.
TLDR, what is "PPE" and what isn't.
It's here:You could argue that disposable filling station gloves are PPE, just not certified for motorcycle usage.
TLDR, what is "PPE" and what isn't.
"gants conformes à la réglementation relative aux équipements de protection individuelle."
So you need to refer to the PPE regs. The PPE regs are all about usage, they talk about resistance to physical, heat, chemical, electrical hazard. Gloves and other PPE are classified acording to the amount of protection they give you from the different sort of hazard. It's down to the user or if in work his employer to assess their suitability for the task at hand via, yes, a risk assessment. If I as an employer issue a chemical worker motorcycle gloves and he gets injured, I'll get done. Likewise vice versa. Whether the gear is suitable will of course if necessary be decided in the courts. So like someone else said, you can try wearing gloves for a totally different hazard and see how far you get with the judge.
(Clue: you have 2 hopes. One is Bob Hope.)
I'm not digging out the PPE regs, you can do your own homework. But it is out there. It won't spell it out for you and say "these gloves are OK for a bicycle, these are OK for a hammer and chisel, for a chainsaw you need these, and these others for a motorbike" because the law has to cover all activities and so you have to ensure that the user has selected something that can reasonably be expected to be effective when (for example) riding a motorcycle on unmade roads in winter conditions while wearing a pink dinosaur costume and carrying a pillion who weighs over 20 stones.
Ah, those old Rugby Club Christmas dos were a laugh.
But the law can't spell out all the possibilities for you, which is why the regs are framed as they are.
Anyone with H&S responsibility at work will tell you they deal with this all the time at work. There aren't always (in fact seldom are) rules laid out. At best you will get guidance. Follow that and you will *probably* do OK in a court if it all goes horribly wrong. However you can come up with something better, if you want. You can essentially do what the f** you like, provided you are prepared to justify your actions in a court.
Where this leaves the French motorcycle cops who routinely blat down French motorways at 160 kph wearing that well known piece of protective clothing "the short sleeved shirt with natty epaulettes" I don't know.
Do the French public actually comply with all these rules?
IIRC when France introduced helmet laws the legislation used a word for "wear" that was interchangeable with their word for "carry", possibly "porter" as in "porter un casque". If it was not an urban myth, this led to people not being prosecuted if the helmet was carried on the riders arm.
The pavements in Paris are covered in dog muck and blokes urinate everywhere despite the laws, so the chances of being fined for not wearing gloves on a motorbike would seem slim. Unless you are on a UK registered vehicle of course.
IIRC when France introduced helmet laws the legislation used a word for "wear" that was interchangeable with their word for "carry", possibly "porter" as in "porter un casque". If it was not an urban myth, this led to people not being prosecuted if the helmet was carried on the riders arm.
The pavements in Paris are covered in dog muck and blokes urinate everywhere despite the laws, so the chances of being fined for not wearing gloves on a motorbike would seem slim. Unless you are on a UK registered vehicle of course.
black-k1 said:
Add to that the fact that (in the UK at least) most (all?) motorcycle gloves are not "officially" PPE.
Most motorcycle protectective clothing isn't legally PPE either if you want to be really pedantic, it needs to be CE certified to be classed as PPE. Most leathers have a CE mark but this is for the body armour not the actual leathers. Only BKS as far as I'm aware make their leather suits to CE standards, I read somewhere that they reckon that making a glove to CE standards is almost impossible.
I don't see the big deal about this, you have to wear a helmet, so you just put it on. Now you have to wear gloves too, so what? Just put them on, it's hardly a massive inconvenience. It might also save a few people a lot of pain if they come off, which is a good thing. And may mean less work for medical services when people do come off, which would also be good.
Mr_Tickle said:
I don't see the big deal about this, you have to wear a helmet, so you just put it on. Now you have to wear gloves too, so what? Just put them on, it's hardly a massive inconvenience. It might also save a few people a lot of pain if they come off, which is a good thing. And may mean less work for medical services when people do come off, which would also be good.
The issue here is twofold. Firstly, there is the question of personal freedom. We all do things that, in one way or another, pose a risk to our own well-being. I don’t think anyone is better qualified than me to decide the correct level of risk for me. Having “the authorities” decide the correct level of risk an individual should take will only lead to one ultimate end, the banning of anything deemed dangerous, as those neither taking the risk or involved in the risk decide it’s safer to not do it at all. The second issue is the definition of what has to be worn. There are loads of gloves that would be classed as PPE thus, I assume, would be legal. However, their ability to protect from spills and splashes will be of no use to a motorcyclist in the process of crashing as he/she will be in need of abrasion resistance! If you’re going to implement a law that requires the use of safety equipment then it’s common sense to define the standards by which that equipment is judged.
Superhoop said:
Condi said:
But if I pop round to my mates, 2 mins up the road in a small town, I'll quite often just throw a helmet on. Is that qualifying for a Darwin award? Or is that just assessing the risk and deciding that it doesnt require anything other than the bare essentials as the chances of coming off are small and the chances of coming off at any speed are negligible?
If that's accessing risk, I'd look at how you do so.. Isn't it something stupid like 1in 3 accidents happen within a mile of home? black-k1 said:
The second issue is the definition of what has to be worn. There are loads of gloves that would be classed as PPE thus, I assume, would be legal. However, their ability to protect from spills and splashes will be of no use to a motorcyclist in the process of crashing as he/she will be in need of abrasion resistance! If you’re going to implement a law that requires the use of safety equipment then it’s common sense to define the standards by which that equipment is judged.
We covered this bit earlier. The same applies to PPE at work, the risk assessment has to demonstrate that the chemical/heat/abrasion resistance of the glove /PPE in use adequately protects the user against the reasonably foreseeable hazards. Wearing electrical live work gloves to protect against heat or knives is a nonsense, as is using stainless steel chainmail butchery gloves for electrical work. This is all known stuff. The French law also talks about "conforms to the normes in place" which implies that there is a standard (the said normes) that you need to read separately.Mr_Tickle said:
I don't see the big deal about this, you have to wear a helmet, so you just put it on. Now you have to wear gloves too, so what? Just put them on, it's hardly a massive inconvenience. It might also save a few people a lot of pain if they come off, which is a good thing. And may mean less work for medical services when people do come off, which would also be good.
Thin end of the wedge, slippery slope etc. Also, I rarely see anyone riding a motorcycle without gloves. If the actual data supports my anecdata, where is the need for compulsion and the subsequent onus on an already overstretched law enforcement community to enforce same? A lot more motorcyclists would feel, and possibly be, a lot safer if the mobile phone law was enforced properly.
This irritates me greatly. Although it would irritate me more if this was being enforced in the UK.
I don't like being told that I 'have to' protect myself from injury. It's up to me if I do or not based on my own assessment of the risks.
Usually people start with the old line about the NHS having to pick up the tab for the injuries, which of course is a totally pointless argument when you look at the amount of money spent caring for smokers, fat people, gardening accidents, DIY accidents, other sports injuries etc. If you start saying that bikes should wear protective clothing by law, then you should ban smoking, gardening and horse riding at the same time.
I've regularly ridden superbikes in jeans and and t-shirt, simply because it was fun and the weather was warm. I have an old video somewhere of me thrashing and wheelieing a bright orange custom ZX-7R like the moron that I am, up to about 140mph, in a t-shirt and no gloves. I was wearing a helmet of course... I'm not TOTALLY stupid.
One important safety tip for you all: Once you get over 100mph your t-shirt will always try to climb right off your back and over your head, potentially obstructing your vision. It is important that you pull the back of your t-shirt down and sit on it to prevent this happening before you set off
I would argue that there simply isn't any need for any more protective clothing laws in the UK, because seemingly all bikers are self appointed fun-police who absolutely cannot stop themselves from lecturing other bikers on safety clothing. Usually with a story about how their friend/brother/cousin fell off and wasn't wearing a jacket or gloves. I've lost count of the number of times a fat old man in full leathers would approach me and begin to lecture me on how my Stussy t-shirt offered no crash protection, despite me not asking him for his opinion.
You will probably all be relieved to know that I no longer own any bikes, thus potentially saving the NHS millions.
I don't like being told that I 'have to' protect myself from injury. It's up to me if I do or not based on my own assessment of the risks.
Usually people start with the old line about the NHS having to pick up the tab for the injuries, which of course is a totally pointless argument when you look at the amount of money spent caring for smokers, fat people, gardening accidents, DIY accidents, other sports injuries etc. If you start saying that bikes should wear protective clothing by law, then you should ban smoking, gardening and horse riding at the same time.
I've regularly ridden superbikes in jeans and and t-shirt, simply because it was fun and the weather was warm. I have an old video somewhere of me thrashing and wheelieing a bright orange custom ZX-7R like the moron that I am, up to about 140mph, in a t-shirt and no gloves. I was wearing a helmet of course... I'm not TOTALLY stupid.
One important safety tip for you all: Once you get over 100mph your t-shirt will always try to climb right off your back and over your head, potentially obstructing your vision. It is important that you pull the back of your t-shirt down and sit on it to prevent this happening before you set off
I would argue that there simply isn't any need for any more protective clothing laws in the UK, because seemingly all bikers are self appointed fun-police who absolutely cannot stop themselves from lecturing other bikers on safety clothing. Usually with a story about how their friend/brother/cousin fell off and wasn't wearing a jacket or gloves. I've lost count of the number of times a fat old man in full leathers would approach me and begin to lecture me on how my Stussy t-shirt offered no crash protection, despite me not asking him for his opinion.
You will probably all be relieved to know that I no longer own any bikes, thus potentially saving the NHS millions.
battered said:
black-k1 said:
The second issue is the definition of what has to be worn. There are loads of gloves that would be classed as PPE thus, I assume, would be legal. However, their ability to protect from spills and splashes will be of no use to a motorcyclist in the process of crashing as he/she will be in need of abrasion resistance! If you’re going to implement a law that requires the use of safety equipment then it’s common sense to define the standards by which that equipment is judged.
We covered this bit earlier. The same applies to PPE at work, the risk assessment has to demonstrate that the chemical/heat/abrasion resistance of the glove /PPE in use adequately protects the user against the reasonably foreseeable hazards. Wearing electrical live work gloves to protect against heat or knives is a nonsense, as is using stainless steel chainmail butchery gloves for electrical work. This is all known stuff. The French law also talks about "conforms to the normes in place" which implies that there is a standard (the said normes) that you need to read separately.In the UK (and I think most of Europe) where safety equipment is legally required for individuals undertaking their "normal life" such as crash helmets or eye protection* on a motorcycle, the law defines clearly the standards that equipment has to be measured by. That way, unqualified individuals, not trained in risk assessment techniques etc. are clear what is and isn’t allowed under the law. As per my original point, the French approach with this law appears to be based entirely on tokenism.
* Yes I know eye protection is not a legal requirement but if eye protection is worn then it must meet specific standards.
RE: PPE vs. CE. My understanding was that the French do not always favour the CE standard, so have another standard for their clothing. Googling suggests it's called the EN 13595-1:2002 Standard.
http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-clothing/ce...
So they would not be able to refer to this as meeting the CE standard, so rather than suggesting they'll accept any old tat, this is presumably this is what they mean by PPE?
Just a thought.
http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-clothing/ce...
So they would not be able to refer to this as meeting the CE standard, so rather than suggesting they'll accept any old tat, this is presumably this is what they mean by PPE?
Just a thought.
I normally don't bat an eyelid at what people want to wear. It's their choice ultimately and I'd like to think it could stay that way (except for helmets which is a good thing IMO). However, I'm amazed at the new trend of wearing full protective gear apart from gloves. I'll never understand that.
This whole discussion is irrelevant anyway as it's compulsory in France and not here and the EU piece is even less relevant if that's possible.
This whole discussion is irrelevant anyway as it's compulsory in France and not here and the EU piece is even less relevant if that's possible.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff