Model A – Performance league tables - would require the comprehensive and available crash and injury data that identified the items of motorcycle protective clothing used in crash to be available. This model is not viable for motorcycle protective clothing due to the
impracticality of sourcing crashed clothing and obtaining reliable information about the crash kinematics (impact types and forces involved).
Model B - Independent Stakeholders Funded Tests is commonly used in road safety and requires external organisations to provide funding for purchase, testing to specified
performance criteria and promotion of results. Tests are generally based on standards and results made available to the public though stakeholder communication networks. While this model requires significant input of resources from the accrediting body, it has several
important advantages. It is not dependent on the support of either industry or consumers but, as the ANCAP program has demonstrated, this approach operates most effectively by
educating consumers and thus shaping market demand for higher quality products. Over time the changing market demand would be expected to create a more inviting business case for industry to engage proactively with the program. As with ANCAP it would be recommended that manufacturer be encouraged to take part by paying for the testing of their product rather than waiting to be independently selected.
Model B also has the potential to avoid the problems that have arisen in Europe where many of the largest manufacturers have avoided the requirements of compliance with the European Standards by not describing their motorcycle clothing products as protective.
With a funding base that is independent of industry, a star system may be more able than a voluntary industry standard to withstand pressure to water down the performance
requirements for award of particular numbers of stars. Thus, the independent star system would potentially have greater safety benefits for motorcyclists.
Current examples include ANCAP, CREP, CRASH which are based on the test methodologies of the relevant standards, but use a higher performance level than the
minimum required. A standard is useful to set the minimum performance levels but does not need to be mandatory in a market-driven rather than regulatory-driven model. The essential features are that the tests are objectively validated and the methodology and criteria
transparent.
Model C- Consumer Funded Tests is similar to Model B and has the same constraints but is conducted and funded by consumer organisations. The disadvantage of this system is that it is dependent on the commercial capacity of the organisation to cover the range of products required. In addition such consumer organisations restrict access to the testing outcomes to
those who subscribe or purchase their magazine. This limits the range of consumers to whom the information is available.
Model D - Voluntary Industry Funded Tests would perhaps be easy to introduce but would only be useful if a large proportion of motorcycle protective clothing industry were
committed to this approach. The extremely low up-take by the industry in Europe, over ten years after their standards were released, suggests that this is unlikely to have sufficient reach to be useful. However, there are grounds to believe that consumer demand may lead to change over time, as increasing numbers of the European companies have been putting garments through the European tests although not using the results to market their products with the CE mark.
Consultation with the local industry indicates that there may be some support for a program of testing to determine the relative protective performance and quality of products. A potential benefit being a possible reduction in competition from cheap low quality imports particularly those bought on-line. There was significant concern and resistance to any suggestions that industry should fund the tests.
Model E - Mandatory Industry Tests has the advantage of covering the widest range of products and ensuring that purchasers are aware of the performance of the products. This was the intention for the European Standards for Motorcycle Protective Clothing, however as the European experience has demonstrated, there are a number of significant disincentives and barriers.
A standards approach distinguishes only between those that failed and those that passed, but does not give any indication of relative or superior performance. Such systems exclude failed products from sale, but do not enable consumers to identify superior products from those available, nor does it offer any incentive to industry to improve performance.
Mandatory testing would require the development of an Australian standard against which products would be tested. The process of developing a standard, or even the adoption of the existing European Standards, is very time consuming and expensive, and would require the cooperation of industry.
The European Standards took some 11 years to be approved from the time of initial development, largely due to the difficulties of obtaining agreement between stakeholders, particularly industry and the rider community. Whereas the industry did not wish to be regulated, the focus of rider concern was that standards would be used by authorities and insurance companies to mandate rider usage. This is also a concern that has been expressed in Australia and will need to be addressed in order to persuade the rider community of the benefits of such a system.
Mandatory testing would also impose a heavy cost burden on the local industry, including both manufacturers and importers in what is a very small market. This is due to the wide variety of motorcycle clothing products (jackets, pants, gloves and boots). The process and cost of testing could price many products out of the market particularly for importers and those who provide tailor-made clothing. Imports represent a substantial proportion of the products locally available, but the Australasian market is relatively small and unlikely to provide an incentive to international companies (e.g. Europe and US), to comply with our test
Chapter 6 – Options for a consumer rating system 88 requirements. Due to the wide range of types of clothing products involved, the situation cannot be compared to helmets.
The outcome would not just reduce the range of products locally available to riders, but would also reduce local access to new developments and technological advances in protective clothing, most of which research is conducted in Europe. The outcome could be to subvert the objectives of the testing program by encouraging riders to buy un-tested clothing on-line from other countries.
It would require a strong degree of government commitment to its introduction and to devise the means of monitoring, labeling and enforcement, which is difficult to justify when the objectives of increasing usage of protective clothing may be achieved through other means.