Helmet light - does it compromise safety?

[mikeg]

On the helmet is a good place to mount a light for visibility. But what happens in a crash? Does having a solid smallish object bashed into the helmet compromise the helmet's protection? The same question applies to helmet mounted cameras.

[meic]

Having a camera or light attached to the helmet increases your head's chance of hitting a projection rather than a flat surface to a certainty. The same is true if you wear a head torch or camera without a helmet.

I think that such practices are not technically legal for motorcycle helmets, which are compulsory.

On the bright side, much of the gadget is pretty crushable and may help in the cushioning of the blow even if it leads to more lacerations. So the projection that you are carrying may be a better option than the projection that it is hitting.

[Aushiker]

The Australian standard for bicycle helmets only allows for a 5 mm protrusion so that would suggest that is not considered okay, at least from the Standards point of view. That said I "mount" a Jumbo HD 808 #11 camera on my helmet. You can see the camera in question in the photo below. When I say mount it is attached via double sided 3M Dual Lock hook and lock tape and a piece of fishing line to stop it flying down the road. Given the robustness of the camera and the way it is mounted I am not concerned about it impacting on the helmets ability to function.



All that said Lazer for example is now manufacturing a helmet with built-in lights.

Andrew

[[XAP]Bob]

Built in designs are going to be less problematic.
But IMHO there is a good chance that the mount will fail in a catastrophic accident - that combined with the low incidence of such events and the high value of a "follow me" light and/or a camera probably puts the balance in favour of either.

[Audax67]

If the thing helps you avoid falling off in the first place then the risk of it damaging your skull is greatly reduced.

[thirdcrank]

Having something solid mounted in the middle of your forehead cannot be much help in the event of landing on your forehead.

I'd suggest that one of the affects on safety when these are used on the road is the tendency to dazzle other road users when a zillion megawatts are directed into their eyes. I've sat patiently at a roundabout both on my bike and in my car whle a rider has come round a roundabout, only to be dazzled as they "made eye contact" with a mini searchlight. The other day I was walking on the pavement down a short sharp hill and somebody riding up, head lolling all over the place, left me uncomfortably dazzled.

I presume it's just a mark of inexperience on the road in some people, belligerent inconsiderateness in others.

[meic]

Having something solid mounted in the middle of your forehead cannot be much help in the event of landing on your forehead.

How true but in fact these things are not solid, in comparison to a really solid object like a brick wall or concrete kerb stone they are a cushion.
It all comes down to the luck of what you hit and how, or what hits you and how.

[thirdcrank]

meic

As a motorcyclist (former motorcyclist) you may have some views on another of my (many) pet hates: motorcyclists who use main beam in daylight.

[meic]

Well, it made you notice them

I didnt even bother with dipped headlights at day.
The majority view was not to use highbeam, as it blinds and makes it hard to judge the motorbike's speed and position.
The minority view was it improved their chance of survival by dominating the road.

Personally I have little problem with motorcycle headlights as they soon pass me, it is the cars and vans that sit behind for hours with their maladjusted lights illuminating the ceiling of my car and my wing mirrors blinding me at every turn of the road.
I do find it odd that I go to great pains to get my lights perfect to the millimetre every year to pass the MOT but the majority of vehicles out on the road are out by yards.

I suppose that as there appears to be a lighting arms race going on, more and more people will not want to disadvantage themselves by stepping back and only using reasonable lighting.

[Brucey]

IIRC a forum user has reported 'more close passes' when using helmet mounted lights; if likely, this is not a good thing.

I have experimented with a couple of tiny (CR20xx-powered) 'bobby dodgers' on my 'round town' helmet. These are handy if I get caught out or as a backup to my main lights.

These can swivel where they are strapped on, plus they are so flimsy where the bracket joins the light (one tiny screw into plastic) that they would surely break in any reasonable impact. The lamp bodies are slightly too large to easily go through the vents in the helmet and gouge my bonce in a prang.

I've not noticed much difference (in driver behaviour) with them on in the (mostly streetlit) 'darkness', but in daylight I get a few (alright, a lot) of funny looks, as the lights look like 'ears' (alright, 'ickle hamster ears'...ahem..) on the top of my helmet....

cheers

[Brucey]

I suppose that as there appears to be a lighting arms race going on, more and more people will not want to disadvantage themselves by stepping back and only using reasonable lighting.

I think you are right, and I too find it very annoying that other road users inconvenience others for at best a marginal or non-existent benefit for themselves.

For motorcycles (and maybe all two-wheeled vehicles) I have wondered if a set of 'marker lights' a fixed distance apart front and rear might be a good idea; The fixed separation would allow other road users to better judge distance and speed; I have often noticed that the speed and distance of twin-headlamp motorcycles (on dipped beam) is readily determined, and when riding such motorcycles, I have felt that other road users better know where I am, too.

When riding with two handlebar mounted lights on my bicycle, I feel that it has sometimes confused other road users, because they are not used to it. Whether I have been mistaken for a motorcycle, truck, (low flying helicopter...) or car, I don't know, but I have often been treated differently.

cheers

[thirdcrank]

When I started driving in the mid-1960's, at night it was the norm to drive on sidelights only in built-up areas, even where the street lighting was poor. (Around here at least, gas lamps were still common on side streets.)

Dipped headlamps provoked constant flashing from oncoming drivers. It also upset my dear old dad if I did it in his car because he learned to drive at a time when headlamps were liable to flatten the battery, even on the move.

Around that time there was an official "experiment" in Birmingham encouraging the use of dipped beam at night as the norm. I don't think it really was an experiment in the sense of the results being evaluated, but it spread nationally. At the time I accepted it as common sense and adopted the practice. (hence the flashing from others and the worries of my dad. Before long, driving on sidelights only had people pulling out of side streets in SMIDSY mode. That was in the days of Ever Ready lamps and it was a long time before cyclists could join this arms race.

meic - thanks for the confirmation that some of the mainbeam motorcyclists do it deliberately, rather than just forgetting to dip. I'd agree about badly adjusted headlights - but I can work out the reason for that without an explanation from a practitioner.

[De Sisti]

I think you are right, and I too find it very annoying that other road users inconvenience others for at best a marginal or non-existent benefit for themselves.

Define marginal. IMO if having a helmet light gives a rider confidence to ride when it's dark,
instead of usingtheir car, then surely that's a good thing. If it inconveniences you, then slow down,
wait until rider has passedyou, then proceed with your journey. Simple innit!

[Brucey]

I think you are right, and I too find it very annoying that other road users inconvenience others for at best a marginal or non-existent benefit for themselves.

Define marginal. IMO if having a helmet light gives a rider confidence to ride when it's dark,
instead of usingtheir car, then surely that's a good thing. If it inconveniences you, then slow down,
wait until rider has passedyou, then proceed with your journey. Simple innit!

Yeah that'll work for everyone...

I don't think you can have the slightest idea how much you might be annoying everyone else.

cheers

[thirdcrank]

I don't think there's anything remotely marginal about being completely dazzled, be that by car headlamps on main beam or a powerful beam from a head-lamp. It's both physically uncomfortable and dangerous.

I'm prepared to believe that it often happens through oversight but doing it deliberately is IMO inexcusable and counter-productive. It seems to me illogical to argue "I'm afraid you won't see me so I'll make sure you can't see anything at all." To the extent that "not seeing" cyclists is sometimes a euphemism for ignoring them or even deliberately endangering them, I cannot see how provoking offenders in this way does anything to cure the problem.