Lumos Cycle Helmet

[TrevA]

Any opinions on the new Lumos helmet that incorporates lighting and turn indicators?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/81 ... cle-helmet

[Heltor Chasca]

Visually? Brilliant at night I would guess. Style? Not me.

I'm not a helmet wearer for the record.

Weight? Crush ability with all that extra hardware? Actual safety ability given we don't even have the facts on the helmets out there already?

I think if you as the consumer have the disposable and thats what you want to spend it on then go for it. Especially if it enhances YOUR riding experience.

No problem...b

[stewartpratt]

http://www.singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/02/bez-the-wedge/

[mjr]

Weight? Crush ability with all that extra hardware?

Ability of that extra hardware to be crushed into you?

Someone was feeling lightheaded when they came up with that idea

[ScottishGeek]

Aside from the concerns over the extra hardware possibly causing injury it is just me who doubts the function of the accererometer triggered brake light?

[[XAP]Bob]

Only EN1078 as well.

Plenty of other things I could think of that would be better than this

[drossall]

I've seen bike indicators in general questioned on the basis that the bike is not wide enough for another road user to tell easily whether you are signalling left or right.

[[XAP]Bob]

And let's ignore their - if you forget your lights.

You're still not legally lit, the lights aren't on the vehicle.

And they sure as eggs is eggs won't meet any defined standard...

[pjclinch]

I don't really see this sort of thing as making any tangible difference to the accident stats. People ride in to cyclists because they haven't seen them in time, which is typically because they haven't looked properly or the cyclist hasn't realised they're in a blind spot. This is why positioning and communication are stressed as important more than Magic Stuff, perspicuity over conspicuousness.

So if you wear a helmet and like gadgets and it fits, why not? But I think you'd be kidding yourself if you thought it made you objectively safer in any meaningful sense (much like a helmet without the lights, in fact), and rendering those turn indicators rather useless by frequently looking around about you in traffic will probably help more (and of course doing that means you'll have to stick your arm out in any case). The brake light... well, if someone's too close when you pull an emergency stop they'll still hit you.

Pete.

[[XAP]Bob]

"Cyclist hasn't realised they're in a blind spot" is not a reason to drive over them.

There is no reason for any vehicle to have a blind spot any more.

[pjclinch]

"Cyclist hasn't realised they're in a blind spot" is not a reason to drive over them.

There is no reason for any vehicle to have a blind spot any more.

That's the HGV left-turn carnage in London sorted out then!

(or in less sarcastic words, that it shouldn't be a problem isn't the same as it isn't a problem, and there are still instances of clueless cycling where people may e.g. change lanes from in front of a sight-line blocking vehicle without bothering to look: however perfect the view from a vehicle the driver can't typically see around corners)

Pete.

[jochta]

"Automatic Breaking Indicator"

Turn signals on a helmet are pointless. a) it assumes the other road users understand what it means, b) There's no way to distinguish a turn signal at any distance, c) It will go against Highway Code advice...

Arm signals
For use when direction indicator signals are not used, or when necessary to reinforce direction
indicator signals and stop lights. Also for use by pedal cyclists and those in charge of horses.

Arm signals are easily recognised, are what other road users expect to see and have been trained to react to and are unambiguous at a distance. You would be very foolish to stick a right turn light on your head and then just move to the right without an accompanying shoulder check or arm signal. This helmet will encourage that behaviour.

The brake light will not be road legal in the UK if it's the only light used. Not attached to the vehicle and above the maximum height for most cyclists.

[jochta]

Where's the evidence for this statement? Drivers don't understand and are inherently unsafe? Utter rubbish.

EDIT :- I notice they back down from this statement in the FAQs, directly contradicting themselves. The visbility of the front facing signal is highly questionable too.

Will the lights/turn signals be visible during the day?
It depends. Like with any other bike light or car light for that matter, if it is broad daylight with direct sunlight, then the lights will not be very visible. The darker it is out, the more prominent the lights will be.

For the turn signals, you should always use hand signals and only use Lumos as a supplement to that, even at night. During the day this would be especially true as your hand signals would be readily visible.

[[XAP]Bob]

"Cyclist hasn't realised they're in a blind spot" is not a reason to drive over them.

There is no reason for any vehicle to have a blind spot any more.

That's the HGV left-turn carnage in London sorted out then!

(or in less sarcastic words, that it shouldn't be a problem isn't the same as it isn't a problem, and there are still instances of clueless cycling where people may e.g. change lanes from in front of a sight-line blocking vehicle without bothering to look: however perfect the view from a vehicle the driver can't typically see around corners)

Pete.

Agreed - but of course there is absolutely no justification along the lines of "cyclists not realising...."

[pjclinch]

Explanation and justification not the same!

And also shows up the problems of "nobody can miss me if I wear this!" thinking.

Pete.