Cycling UK Forum

On my commute home the other day I was passed by another cycle commuter whose helmet had what looked like integrated red LEDs in the shape of a warning triangle on the back. It made him massively visible and it'd be very hard for any driver to claim they hadn't seen him.

Sadly, he blasted past and got through the next set of lights so I wasn't able to ask what make it was as I want one. I've had a quick look online and all I can really see that's similar is the Lumos, which is a bit expensive, though that's not a deal breaker, but only comes in one size which is, as I need a 64-65cm helmet.

Does anyone know of or have experience with any other, similar helmets?

If not I might go for something like this and hope that the Lumos sells well enough for them to make a larger size in the future: http://www.halfords.com/cycling/bike-li ... lmet-light

They're incredibly stupid, showing misleading lights in every direction each time you look around. It's only legal because lighting regulations apply to the bike not the rider, but I'd expect you to lose a chunk of any insurance claim as a result of displaying confusing lights.

https://www.met-helmets.com/products/ac ... -led-light

My Met helmet came with one of these.

Because the light is higher up it does increase visibility it might fit other helmets & I know there are aftermarket one available for other helmets that mount in the same location, so no need to buy a new helmet if your don’t want to.

I like the concept of the lumos helmets, but as far as real life practicality/function it’s debatable.

mjr wrote:They're incredibly stupid, showing misleading lights in every direction each time you look around. It's only legal because lighting regulations apply to the bike not the rider, but I'd expect you to lose a chunk of any insurance claim as a result of displaying confusing lights.

Do you have any evidence for this? Or can you state cases in which this has occurred?

Vorpal wrote:

mjr wrote:They're incredibly stupid, showing misleading lights in every direction each time you look around. It's only legal because lighting regulations apply to the bike not the rider, but I'd expect you to lose a chunk of any insurance claim as a result of displaying confusing lights.

Do you have any evidence for this? Or can you state cases in which this has occurred?

Asked my wife, a personal injury lawyer, and she says she can see this being possible for it to be the case, but only if you don't have lights on the bike as well as the defendant would argue the signals given were misleading, and defendant lawyers would argue anything to reduce a claim. She doesn't know of any cases where this has happened though.

I hadn't seen the indicators bit on the Lumos - can't say I'm a fan of that, just the big red triangle.

The Met clip on light looks good though. Thanks, I'll have a look into it.

I thought one of the reasons some quote about the negative effects of wearing a helmet is the additional weight to the head that can make any injury worse. And I'd have expected LED lights with batteries (big enough to be useful/bight enough) would have made the helmet heavier.

Not trying to turn this into a "reasons to/not to wear a helmet" debate (again), but possibly a consideration when adding weight to a helmet.

Ian

There you go . . . . make yourself SUPER-VISIBLE for the convenience of the motorists.

Maybe they will appreciate your action and treat you with even more respect.

. . . or maybe take the performance benefit and treat you with less caution than otherwise . . . . .

I think that when it comes to commuting through crowded city streets at night, then something which stands out as much as this helmet did to me is definitely worth looking into.

I don't give a monkeys' about drivers respecting me - I care about maximising the chances of them seeing me and not hitting me.

Bowak wrote:Does anyone know of or have experience with any other, similar helmets?

https://torchapparel.eu/
May have seen one in use a few weeks back, might have been a different brand. Can't see the point myself.

Bowak wrote:I don't give a monkeys' about drivers respecting me - I care about maximising the chances of them seeing me and not hitting me.

Then help CUK campaign for road justice.

The catalogue of hi viz emergency vehicles with blue lights on getting crashed into suggests this isn't a winning tactic. The main thing it achieves is another small step of making cycling even more unusual, that such outlandish costumery doesn't fail the laugh test, disadvantaging yourself and every other rider and non rider by reducing the safety in numbers effect.

honesty wrote:

Vorpal wrote:

mjr wrote:They're incredibly stupid, showing misleading lights in every direction each time you look around. It's only legal because lighting regulations apply to the bike not the rider, but I'd expect you to lose a chunk of any insurance claim as a result of displaying confusing lights.

Do you have any evidence for this? Or can you state cases in which this has occurred?

Asked my wife, a personal injury lawyer, and she says she can see this being possible for it to be the case, but only if you don't have lights on the bike as well as the defendant would argue the signals given were misleading, and defendant lawyers would argue anything to reduce a claim. She doesn't know of any cases where this has happened though.

If you don't mind, could you ask would she advise a road user who had been showing a prominent red light to the front of their vehicle at times (more prominent than the legal white bike light) to let a dispute get to court?

This seems so daft that I'm not surprised if it's never reached court.

Ok, so maybe saying I don't give a monkeys' about respect was overly hyperbolic and of course I care about all users properly respecting and watching out for each other. But it was more in reply to the response above that reply from Graham which I thought was pointlessly sarcastic to a genuine question - it really did jump out at me just how visible this one guy was, when many of my fellow cycle commuters in South Manchester are almost invisible to other cyclists, let alone drivers.

Now obviously, tone doesn't always carry across amazingly well on the internet, so at least a couple of us have probably got somewhat the wrong end of the stick about just how jokey/serious each other has been about every specific utterance.

I've seen various helmets with lights in. One I saw did have a red triangle of lights in, and it certainly could be mis leading....
... the helmet I saw was being worn while standing (not on a bike). The wearer was having a conversation, thus every time he nodded his head in the conversation, the red LEDs got brighter (as in brake lights), every time he tilted his head to one side or the other, a side pointing orange set of flashing LEDs (as in indicators) came on. I only viewed it from the rear, so not sure what was visible from the front.
So, potentially a good idea, but in the case I saw, the motion sensor that activated the various whist was perhaps to sensitive and or needed some AI added to work out if you are on a bike or not.

After doing a bit of reading, I think that is the Lumos. I agree that having the motion sensitive parts could be misleading to other road users and I'm not keen on that.

I've also seen someone wearing a helmet on the same route that was blaring lights front and back like a christmas tree, and that seemed too distracting too, though maybe that was the novelty factor of seeing it for the first time.