Workshop Note: LED Headlamps

The standard Trad headlamps are really quite pitiful compared to modern cars, producing a dim yellow glow, which is hardly safe on today’s roads. If you are a fair weather Morgan driver this may not trouble you much. But my early morning outings often begin in the dark, and it can often be dark for quite some time. I have replaced both pairs of headlamps on my Morgans. The Roadster has a pair of Halo sidelamp units designed for Land Rovers. My Plus 4 has Cibie units, sold by Librands. In both cases I fitted good quality H4 bulbs, but the light output is still poor.

First the legal disclaimer. Technically, aftermarket LED bulbs are not road legal according to the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations, as they are not E marked. Sections 4 & 5 state that dipped beam and main beam headlights are required to have an approval mark - usually E mark or a British Standard mark. For nearly every other application, an approval mark is also required. If the bulbs for your headlights are H4, the “H” stands for Halogen meaning the headlight unit including the reflector has been purposely built for a Halogen bulb. The number that follows the “H” indicates that only an H bulb with the same number can be installed.
Rear brake lights are required by law to operate between 15 and 36 watts, however a 15w LED would produce an immense amount of light, and so is totally unsuitable at that wattage. Unfortunately, the legislation is old and outdated. Written in 1986, there are still many things that need to be changed. For example, the legislation doesn’t take new technologies into account. It was written at a time when the idea of replacing one technology for another within the same headlight unit just wasn’t on the table.

The MOT manual states “Check HID and LED headlamps for mandatory levelling and cleaning devices” and the tester should check the lighting for “Operation“, “Security” and “Condition” which essentially means that they need to make sure that the lights work, and are fitted correctly. Nothing else is mentioned regarding the use of LED headlight bulbs. In respect of self levelling and cleaning devices, section 4.1.5 of the MOT inspection manual states that not all vehicles are fitted with a levelling device, and so if your vehicle doesn’t have one, it would not be tested. With no other mention of after-market LEDs in the MOT guidelines, all that is left is for them to check is that the beam pattern is correct and the colour of the light is predominantly white, white with a blue tint or yellow. Any good quality after-market LED bulbs will meet this criteria. As long as the beam pattern and the colour of the light is correct – then there is no reason an LED upgrade bulb will fail an MOT.

Having made the case that this technology is technically not road legal, I’ll now justify making these changes on the grounds of safety. And also bear in mind that there is a strong anti LED lobby out there, if you search the internet. My headlamp bulbs were sourced from Classic Car LEDs (www.classiccarleds.co.uk)….no connection, (coughs), and other suppliers are out there.

Fitting is fiddly. Be under no illusions about that. The first one I did, probably took me about two hours, as I tried various ways of fitting the control box and much larger bulb unit into the available space in the headlamp cowl. Both my Morgans have plastic headlamp bowls. The headlamp unit will just fit inside the plastic bowl if the black heat sink is reversed. But the control unit has to be fitted behind the plastic bowl inside the cowl. This is a weatherproof component, but inside the cowl is weatherproof anyway. Interestingly inside my cowls showed dried water droplets, but touring Scotland does mean driving in torrential rain over long distances. I wanted to do a quality fit with two holes cut into the plastic cowl, with grommets, but the reality is that the control box wires are only just long enough to reach and the positioning of the box is “suck it and see”. So in the end I put two large holes in the plastic cowl at roughly nine o’clock and three o’clock positions. Then juggled the cowl back into place until I could refit the four self tappers which hold the plastic cowl securely onto the headlamp nacelle. One of the self tappers was odd.........handmade cars eh!

Then the headlamp unit with LED bulb can be connected. One end of the control box wiring is plugged into the H4 three spade plug. The other end is a 4 pin screwed weatherproof connector, with an idiot proof fitting, so I was good. I checked the alignment before removing the old bulbs, on a piece of brown paper, attached to my bench with drawing pins. The new lights needed lowering slightly. I’ll get the alignment checked when I can. A few days later I was out in the dark and was not flashed by anyone approaching, so they obviously don’t dazzle. Light output is transformational. Hopefully the images attached will show the difference. The light is white, rather than yellow, and with a much better spread. So for me, while recognising that these lights are not technically road legal, I feel that the safety improvements are worth making this change. I may at some point change the brake lamps. Still thinking about that!

I might change the Roadster to the Cibie Units, because the dip spread is significantly better than with the Halo lights.

Now the pictures......................





This is one bulb and the control unit.


Mark the position of the "marker".


Two holes in the cowl, with control unit behind.


Headlamp with heat sink.


Dip beam. LED on the right,


Main beam. LED on the right.

Dave,
when I asked Duncan at Classic Car LEDs about that box he gave me two options.
1. an extension cable so you can run it into the wing area
2. the slightly less powerful bulbs I fitted that don't have that box. Which I chose.

There's just enough space John.......

Glad to hear it.

I sense an LEDfest pub meet coming with a "who's got the brightest" shoot out

Just need to wait for the clocks to go back.

Yes, a night time meet in a dark carpark could be fun....
If we are allowed such things...by 25th October....

As an amusing addition to the comment DW made about legislation falling behind technology, as many will know in France drivers are required to carry a spare set of bulbs.
The 2 Mercedes C Class we have have all has LED bulbs, there isn't a single filament or halogen bulb anywhere. Models sold in other European markets have traditional bulbs: my dealer advised me to carry a set of bulbs for the C Class from one of the markets that doesn't have all LEDS, just to keep the Policeman/woman happy.

It will be a blessing when all cars have full LED lighting. The number I see with failed lights seems to be on the increase and often cars only a few years old. Brake lights especially given some drivers can't travel for more than a few hundred yards without dabbing them even on a straight traffic free road in some cases.

I was faced with a similar problem last year. My car has led headlights that are sealed units, Not practical carrying a spare so just took a standard bulb and crossed my fingers.

Automatic transmission and left foot braking with left foot resting permanently on the pedal?

More likely poor concentration or they've just received a text

Today I replaced the Angel Eyes headlights on my Roadster with the original Wipac units. Dipped beam cut off is significantly sharper.
I also added LED sidelights into the headlamp units. The wingtop lights have been LED for a while.

At the rear, I've replaced the brake lights and cobra with LEDs and the difference in light output is significant. Reflected against the garage door, I would say triple the output of the standard bulbs. These LEDs are white. I prefer red light covers.

From a safety point of view, this is a cheap and simple upgrade.

Dave I used red leds for the rear. Leds are very white and the red ones help keep the colour.
John

Dave, having also used red LED's from same source I would agree with John. I fitted just one with red lens and the effect in both tail light and brake mode is for not only brighter but a more distributed red light across the lens compared with that from OE filament bulb.

Ok both, interesting. I use Aero covers on the rear. I'll take some pics tomorrow when I do the Plus 4.

Agree and I think the LED brake/tail lights are a simple and probably essential upgrade. I get my LED bulbs from Duncan who also advises Red LEDS


Red LEDs

Yep, I've gone for red Leds and red lamp covers. Considerably brighter. Also swapped the number plate bulbs to Led's too.

Ordered my Red LED Brake tail lights today and warm white LED numberplate bulb LEDs from Classiccar LEDs


Classiccar LEDS

So here's an admission. Turns out my stop/tal light LEDs are red. I must have selected red on the drop down....................

Or one day I'll read the small print.

Anyway, today I finished off my Plus 4. Front sidelights, and rear stop/tail lights and cobra.

Here's the bulb:



Capturing red light proved problematical:





Hard to make out here but the offside (left) is standard, and the nearside (right) is LED. The difference is significant.



This is the bigger L795 lens:



The sidelight difference is best shown in the dark. It's obvious which is the LED!

John V6 has a very similar picture of the LED sidelight bulbs in headlamp comparison taken in the garage. On a recent jaunt though followed by two Brookland Roadsters, it was the further one with the smiley (ARV6 style) LED's that showed up best in moderate daylight. It seems the powerful single light source gets diluted over the surface of the headlamp reflector to be an effective DRL.

Not a particularly good photo example here since camera angle too high but all three have sidelights on with John's on the right and the Tony's ARV6 type on the left.



ETA: Just spoken to Duncan at Classic Car LED's and ordered 4 x BA9s warm white number plate LED's to replace the 4w filament bulbs, all of which had blackened glass suggesting close to end of life. Having checked the indicators flashed correctly (70/min) with a red test LED, have also ordered a set of amber ones for the full monty. It seems the BCU wants to see some current draw but it doesn't have to be fully equivalent to filament bulbs to flash correctly.

I've had LED tail lights from Classiccar for some time. Now I think it is time to chnage the headlight and spots - which come on with full beam - to LEDs.

Richard so did you then buy non canbus indicator LEDs? I agree with you on the side lights & am working on it.

Steve the H4 replacements are amazing. Far brighter at night but on a test drive no one flashed me so I think they must be OK. The MOT next year will tell.

Long story but found that indicators flashed quicker with one bulb removed - maybe 70% faster - but with Cobra brake LED in its place flashed normally. Then discussed with Duncan. He suggested despite my findings that I went for the canbus type as they have internal resistors - except he only had two! Then he did some current draw checks whilst on the phone finding canbus amber type draw 1.2 and normal ones 0.7 amp each. He's confident that with the tiny help from repeaters this will collectively present enough load for the electronic flasher within BCU to flash normally. Consequently has sent two of each.

Regarding your front sidelights would the same LED headlamp bulbs work with the ARV6 type headlamp lens as with Tony's car? Other suggestion would be to change front indicator lamps to BA15d double filament type. You could then use the white/amber LED's Duncan offers with auto switch over when indicators active. Clear lens would be needed of course.

I have a cunning plan Richard. I'll explain when we meet next

FYI, Philips is now manufacturing second generation H4 LEDs without a control box. I have no personal experience wether they fit well or not, but at least the box is not there.
From DaveW's pictures, it seems that the light pattern of the LED is more diffuse than the halogen, much less pronounced boundaries between lit and unlit area. Thus they might produce more glare. As the Wipacs are known for not-so-good optics, I would be hesitant to a LED/Wipac combination.

My path will be as follows:
1. Install Philips Racing Vision H4, somewhat more intense that Nightbreakersbut estimated life span of 180 hours (done already, mine are good so far as I mainly go with DRLs)
2. Fit relays for both headlamps, to avoid loss of voltage at the filaments.
3. Fit Cibie 180 reflectors, known to be much better optically.
4. If I am still not happy, get LEDs

As for the Norwegian equivalent of MOT (aren't MOT regulations equal for all EU? We are obligated to comply in spite of being outside), LEDs are considered road legal. You are free to fit them; PROVIDED you have automatic cleaning and levelling devices. If the car in question does not have that, sorry - no LED or even xenon. So really not on a Morgan, but of course one can be a little pragmatic and/or creative....

I have the LED headlight bulbs without the control box. They are far better than the standard H4

Dedicated LED headlamps designed for the light source and using accurate projector optics for dipped beam at least, are the way to go.

I would question your need for the electrical complexity of a relay for the headlamp circuit Robbie, given the substantially lower current draw of the LED light source. Generally with electrics KISS rules.

You have definately got a point, I have already thought about it. I think I will start with the Cibies. Another matter is wether it is really needed. With the bright nordic nights I seldom use more than DRLs, exept in tunnels. How good is good enough.....

Don't take too much from the headlamp glare in those pictures, because the camera doesn't show up the definition.

The Cibie units on my Plus 4 provide the sharpest dipped beam cut off. The Wipacs now on my Roadster are not quite so good as the Cibies, but more defined than the Halo units.

Not that I have any intention to fit LEDs, just curious if there was info on beam alteration for "foreign" trips, as per the adhesive patches we used to stick on our headlights for foreign holidays etc..?

I have used the adhesive patches on standard bowls with LED lights. The LED bulbs can also be rotated in the standard H4
fitment

I appreciate the difficulties in getting a fair and representative photo to demonstrate headlamp performance but accepting this here is mine for comparison, taken when evaluating my dedicated "E" marked LED headlamps from Powerful UK, the Land Rover lighting specialists.



Note the defined cutoff and lack of splatter and spill above, far superior to the high power halogens on the left in both intensity and width but more importantly in reduced splatter. Also note the contrast and how dark the bricks are above and to the right of the LED's cutoff, light that would otherwise have a component to add glare to an oncoming driver.

I fitted these in to my +4 (1997) last week. They are a straight swap-out for the filament H4 bulbs, &, WOW, what an improvement........🤷🏼‍♂️👍.

I am definitely going to be more comfortable driving in the dark in Morgie now.

Time to get some LEDs for the rear side/stop lamps, for sure!

Wow, I think from memory H4s are 750 lumens, the LEDs I fitted are 6000 so 16000 must be very very bright.
Don't other drivers at night get annoyed with the new bulbs?

I notice also the heat sink on the bulb is inside the headlamp shell. I have no idea how hot they get but my heat sink is outside the shell.

Bulbs

Be careful out there folks, lot's of dodgy untested stuff on't net, from the happy happy bulb co inc...etc

SORRY - Don’t know how to link to a posting and reply.....

The beam from Morgie’s headlights is exactly as it should be, but, now, the light is white - not yellowish. The top of the beam profile is flat and, from the short journey that I have made so far, none of the oncoming traffic has flashed/dipped/etc. In fact, the illumination to the offside is clearly below the bonnet level of anything coming towards me.

Additionally, during daylight hours, the original headlamps remain and Morgie continues to look as built.

One happy motorist🤗👍!

A very interesting article on LED headlights can be found on www.autobulbsdirect.co.uk. Click on “News”, then select page 2 and scroll down to select the article “Are LED Headlight bulbs the brightest”.
Some very interesting information which is worth reading by anyone considering LED upgrade.
It also reminded me of my biking days some many years ago when we all started putting our headlights on in the daytime. I then attended a police “ride to arrive course” and the advice was not to do that after all, as it impairs judgement of speed & distance by anyone seeing you coming. That seems to be backed up in the above article. When we see a bright light, we automatically close down the iris and in turn alter our perspective of the approaching vehicle.
So maybe bright ain’t always right??
I am sticking to standard H4.

I tend to agree. The brighter the bulbs, the more difficult it makes for oncoming traffic to see where they're going, so in turn, they try and fit brighter bulbs etc etc.......

Never ride my bike with a headlight, unless it's dark. Found the bobbing forks make people think you're flashing them out of junctions with disasterous results.

If I can't see very well at night, I reduce my speed until it's not a problem.

Years back in the America, one of the States (can't remember which, but Utah rings a bell) trialled compulsory daylight headlights for motorcycles and at the end of the trial found fatalities had risen ... at the time it was put down to 'target fixation' as the bright light approached oncoming traffic down the long stratight roads

K

I can see (no pun intended!) that judgement of speed & distance of other vehicles would be affected if you were dazzled by bright lights.

It is also difficult to judge speed and distance of other vehicles at night where there aren't any streetlights because you can only see the lights and no background of scenery or buildings to use as reference points for how fast the lights are traveling. But then again you wouldnt drive without lights in the dark even if legal to do so.

So whilst I would agree that having lights on, particularly on a motorbike isnt always beneficial, for most weather and light conditions I would say it is.

Police motorcyclists are different in being very visible because they have white fairings, helmets and Hi Viz decals so maybe that is better in the daytime than having lights on?

If you as a motorbike rider (or as a car driver, for that sake) keep your headlights on, you are at least seen and noticed. I agree that a very bright, dazzling light can make it difficult to judge distance, but the point is that I will be aware of the rider - in dawn, dusk, rain, fog, even bright sunlight etc. Just look at an oncoming car - which one will draw your attention first, the one with lights on or the one without? So here here all motorized vehicles are obliged to have their lights lit, 24/7. Works well, no increase in accidents after that law change was introduced. I do remember the discussion when it was to be introduced, smaller vehicles would "drown in an ocean of light" etc. The experience showed the contrary, surrounding traffic was more easily seen, on two or four wheels. Bright colours on bike and clothing is good, but a lit headlamp is much better for getting noticed. And light use can be regulated by law, vehicle and clothing colours hardly so.

Agree that a light and bright clothing helps to be seen but I think the argument of poor eyesight judgement, focuses on the brighter the lights, the worse it might be. So although in Norway, everyone drives with lights on, have they all converted to brighter LEDs?
As a one time biker, a common experience was car drivers pulling out from junctions in front of me, thinking (incorrectly)that they had plenty of time to do so. I am sure other bikers will have experienced the same.
So perhaps the point is not necessarily don’t use lights but more so, don’t think that the brighter they are, the safer you will be.

My half moon LEDs in the headlights & side lights on did F**k all when white van man T boned me. I agree they may help but I wouldn't rely purely on your DRLs.

I'm of the opinion that if you need DRL to see a car/bike in broad daylight. then you shouldn't be driving.

A person’s brain to eye link is not continuous. As you scan side to side you get gaps as your brain jumps slightly causing blind spots where the image is not registered. A while back I posted a link to a site describing this effect and how fighter pilots were trained to scan differently so as not to create these blind spots. I’ll have a look for the link as I think it also used car driving as well.
The phenomenum is based on Saccadic eye movement. Still searching for the link!
Here’s a link that shows theeffect on what we register as seeing....
https://youtu.be/qIF3FRwbG6Y

Hence the good old 'Think once, think twice, think Bike'

People dont see things they arent looking for



FINISHED FILES ARE THE RES-
ULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIF-
IC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE
EXPERIENCE OF MANY YEARS



How many letter F s above?

OK, I'll bite. 7 (or 8 if you count the one in the question)?

No, not everbody but almost. A mix of HID/Xenon and LED (EVs are selling a LOT here, they all have LED) and then a decreasing number of halogen. Provided these powerful lights are well adjusted and have mandatory cleaning and automatic levelling devices, there are no problems. As for poor eyesight, when you grow older you will get gradually less sensitive to light, partly because the lens is growing slightly opaque as years pass by. I would think this demands for stronger light, not the opposite. And distance judgement is mainly dependent on stereoscopic sight which is what we have with two parallell visual axis. I do not think this differs with the iris open or closed. I think the trouble with bikes is that they have only one light. When a car approaches I automatically make a judgement based upon the two headlamps that give me an indication of the size and thus distance to the vehicle. Much more difficult with a one-eyed bike....
I do not think it is that complicated. I want to see, and equally or even more important I want to be seen. Apart from the physical appearance of the car (or bike) there is not much more than a good light I can rely on. So I follow suit. If the majority of vehicles have HID/Xenon/LED, I will improve my headlights not to stand out in a negative way - not feeble, but not agressively bright either.

Those are some stunts I hope on the bikes. That advert always made me wince as bike driver at the time.

No, not everbody but almost. A mix of HID/Xenon and LED (EVs are selling a LOT here, they all have LED) and then a decreasing number of halogen. Provided these powerful lights are well adjusted and have mandatory cleaning and automatic levelling devices, there are no problems. As for poor eyesight, when you grow older you will get gradually less sensitive to light, partly because the lens is growing slightly opaque as years pass by. I would think this demands for stronger light, not the opposite. And distance judgement is mainly dependent on stereoscopic sight which is what we have with two parallell visual axis. I do not think this differs with the iris open or closed. I think the trouble with bikes is that they have only one light. When a car approaches I automatically make a judgement based upon the two headlamps that give me an indication of the size and thus distance to the vehicle. Much more difficult with a one-eyed bike....
I do not think it is that complicated. I want to see, and equally or even more important I want to be seen. Apart from the physical appearance of the car (or bike) there is not much more than a good light I can rely on. So I follow suit. If the majority of vehicles have HID/Xenon/LED, I will improve my headlights not to stand out in a negative way - not feeble, but not agressively bright either.

It's amazing how many people can't see a bright yellow car.

Oh yes, even the brightest yellow......................

Exactly. I can assure you I consider myself the most capable, lucid, flawless, intelligent and attentive driver on the planet. I never make mistakes, I see everybody perfectly, regardless of changing weather and light conditions. Unfortunately, me being so brilliant leaves the rest of the human race quite inferior, and thus I prefer to protect myself and possibly other drivers as well. So, as an act of mercy, I choose to be well seen, hopefully reducing the risk of being smashed up by some moron. For me, I am infallible..

In the country of the blind, the one eyed man is king

Its 6, youre only one out Tim. When I show it at work people usually say 3 and cant see the F's in the words 'OF'

What about the one in "People don't see things they aren't looking For"? Or weren't you looking for that one?

It’s used often on communication training programmes the trainers brief says it’s because we process the phonetic sound of the letters as that’s how we are taught to read. ‘Of’ is processed as ‘Ov’ so we don’t count/see the F.

BR
Colin

I think sospans reference to sacadic eye movement seems the most plausible explanation to the classic "sorry didn't see you mate" scenario.

My brother, a taxi driver proud of his vigilance, knocked a cyclist off his bike pulling out of a T junction some time ago. We discussed the event in depth later down the pub. Mitigating factors were the broad blind spot from the shallow angle screen pillar of his Renault C5, but we agreed the speed and duration of his right left scan particularly at a familiar junction close to home, was the route cause of missing seeing the cyclist.

With advancing age I find myself gradually easing out of awkward rural junctions and doing a double take on my scan nowadays.

It depends how many times the hammer hits your thumb

OK Tim I should have said in the sentence above!

Another Think Bike road safety photo. Spot the Motorcyclist

That is not easy.

What he needs is a massively noisy exhaust so you can at least hear him and will make you look

And use a DRL or LED headlight and cut all the trees down!

Or just look properly It's actually not that hard to spot the bike. Take time and extra care when pulling out of junctions. Think once, think twice, think Bike.

Yes I agree and in reality a moving motorcycle might be a bit easier to see than on a photo. However we don't live in an ideal world and the problem is people often have poor observations, are in a rush and light and weather conditions may compound the problem.

Shouldn't it be Look once, Look twice, Look LED lights on a bike!

Probably, I just get sick of the ever increasing race to the bottom.

People don't look properly - instead of encouraging and training them to use their eyes, we'll put the onus on the potential victim to make themselves brighter then, when they still get side swiped, we can blame them for 'not being bright enough'.

When every car/bike/rider is painted a compulsory luminous yellow, and carries a plethora of High Power spotlights, what are we going to do then?

GPWM

How true. Something I have written several times on TM (and other motoring forums!).

Spotted ! That road looks frosty too, take care out there...

And note the skid marks

Oh no, do they show

I use LED sidelights as DRLs in my Asphalt Grey Morgan as an alternative to a luminous yellow respray :), but we are halfway there with LED headlights and sidelights standard on most and DRLs a requirement on new cars.

I've done a lot of driver training because of my job, but the vast majority of non vocational drivers don't and don't want to do any further training after passing their tests. If we cant encourage them I'm not sure therefore how we can make other drivers look properly.

I cant even see the motorcyclists trousers

Depressing isn't it. A general acceptance of the dumbing down of standards and skills. Eventually we'll have no choice but to sit in a driverless car as it'll be the only way 'the government' can keep us safe.

Just like everyone now expecting the government (AKA us) to help them out.

I don't thiink anyone is wanting the government to legislate us into driverless cars, just think it's something that will happen if we keep on accepting ever decreasing driving standards.....

Standards required to pass the UK driving test are still quite high though and the UK does have one of the best Road Safety records in the world.

However until we have driverless cars we can still enjoy driving our Morgan's which do at least require some skill to drive safely, which also applies to the new Plus Four and Sixes looking at some of the recent test drive statistics!

Whilst I don’t disagree with this statement, I do think that the vast majority of people take no interest whatever in their driving once they have passed a driving test. As members of this forum, we are probably very much in the minority in caring about the standard of our driving.

I'd agree, and this is why I think driverless cars will have quite an appeal for many drivers. The current levels of driver assistance are proving very popular, and I see no reason why the trend shouldn't continue.

Agreed. That's why I like my old 4/4. No gimmicks, no assistance, no airbags,no power brakes, no power steering etc. Man and machne in its purest form. Same with my bikes. I removed the ABS system from the only bike that had it.

When I get to the stage when I feel I need all the bells and whistles, I'll probably retire my driving licence........

More than depressing, I find it a sensible recognition of that we are humans with our inborne flaws, that mishaps are inevitable and that there is a price to pay both for the individual and the society if we rely on only personal skills and responsibility. Rather well known truth, I must say. So if safety devices and regulations contribute to less deaths, mutilations, health care expenses and personal tragedies, I have difficulty seeing that as a problem. Of course there is a limit to everything, and there is personal freedom and the right of individual choice to consider. Still, if I get killed or injured in traffic, I am surely not the only one that gets affected.
I remember my father objecting intensely when wearing safety belts became mandatory in the early sixties. He said that it would create a new sense of security and make people drive more reckless, creating more accidents. So the "dumbing down" argument has been heard before. Anybody agree with my father's opinion today?

Another factor is that modern cars encourage a lack of participation .... ABS, traction control , lane keeping, auto braking .... combined with ever increasing infotainment screens distance the driver from the driving .... as do the levels of ride and sound proofing .... seems that many drivers waft along only partly aware they're actually in charge of a ton or two of metal travelling at speed.... none of the above help if you pull out of a junction in front of a biker unfortunately.

K

Your Dad sounds like a wise man. In the bike world we always used to be very wary of Volvos - the owners were so well protected they were often less careful with their driving. I wonder if they had to introduce airbags as the number of accidents were increasing when people put seatbelts on.....

Yep, it's called Risk Compensation Theory, well known and understood in insurance actuarial circles. If we think we're safer, we take more risks.

40 years ago my father in law taught me how to use a chain saw safely. He knew what he was doing, he was MD of the UK's only chainsaw manufacturer at the time (Danarm). He took a very dim view of safety equipment. He felt that knowing that the slightest error could cause horrible injury or death was the best way to avoid becoming blasé about their use. I still don't use any safety kit today when using a chain saw.

As for cars, imagine how safe they'd be if brake lights were outlawed and there was a solid steel spike. in the centre of the steering wheel, aimed at the driver's chest.

My point here is was he right when he postulated "creating more accidents"? Or injuries/deaths, if you like? From experience, which is best/safest - with or without safety belt? And also from experience, what group suffers more injuries using chain saws? With or without safety equipment? Crash helmets on a bike? Hard hats on a construction site? Protection gloves? Do you think we should discard safety devices in order to get less accidents? Do we have any historical proof of possible benefits of such a theory?

I was very slow to seat belts, always thought it was better to get thrown out.untill I heavily crashed my MGA on a night rally...you soon change your mind on safety.

We may look back and think things were better in the 'good old days' but In 1930 the number cars on the road in the UK topped one million.

There were 7305 road deaths in the UK in 1930. Cars had no safety features, and there wasn't any driver training.

Due to the number of deaths controlling traffic became a top priority and the Road Traffic Act was created in 1930, The Highway Code 1931 and The Driving Test 1935.

In comparison in 2019 we had over 30 million vehicles on the road in the UK. There were 1870 road deaths in the UK in 2019. That's a quarter of the 1930 figure with 30 times the number of vehicles on the road.

Worldwide the safest roads in the world are the 'SUN' countries. Scandinavia, Switzerland, The UK and Netherlands.

The risk of dying as a result of a road traffic injury is highest in the African Region (26.6 per 100 000 population), and lowest in the European Region (9.3 per 100 000).

Adults aged between 15 and 44 years account for 59 percent of global road traffic deaths. 77 percent of road deaths are males.

UK Statistics

Exactly. That finishes the discussion for my part. I sincerly hope the airline companies do not adapt the philosophy of "the fewer safety devices and routines, the safer the conduct and less accidents". I rest my case.

For what its worth Robbie, Norway has the safest roads in the world with a death rate of 3 persons per 100,000 population.

And I was wrong there are 31 million cars on the road in the UK but over 40 million vehicles in 2020 compared to 1 million vehicles in 1930

That's true I suppose, I never had any formal training with a chainsaw and never wore PPE, then whilst cutting down some conifer hedge a gust of wind blew the windbreak fabric on the fence onto the back of the blade which then flipped back and smacked me in the forehead, chain still spinning.

I was told had it hit any soft tissue I would have been more seriously injured than I was.

Now I do wear PPE, but am also far more aware of what can happen outside my control.

Phew! I'm glad you weren't seriously hurt. I have an enormously well-developed sense of my own self-preservation and consequently am extremely risk-averse, so I don't use a conventional chainsaw in anything other than perfect conditions - certainly not when it's windy or wet.

For stuff like hedges and higher stuff I use a pole trimmer (I call it a 'chainsaw on a stick') which gets the blade a safe distance away from me. For anything aerial, I get the professionals in. I know my limits and wouldn't dream of using a chainsaw without both feet on the ground on extremely stable footing.

Well, that's nice to know. Norway is also a society of rules, regulations and control with a lot of concern about safety, including traffic: vehicles, drivers and roads. I suspect there is a connection there... With 39 years of neurosurgery I have seen (and studied) my share of consequences of accidents, road and others - with and without protective and safety gear. For me, the choice is simple. Seems like we agree on the matter.

Yes I'm with you on that Robbie.

We both live where the roads are comparatively safe, and without seeing statistics just seeing the standards of driving in other countries makes me realise we are better off than most.

I really hope that nobody seriously thinks that a lack of safety devices makes things safer, I would hope that everyone understood that my point about car brake lights and steering wheel spikes was intended to show the idiocy of such an approach.

Of course safety devices, processes, and equipment have been of enormous benefit and no-one in their right mind would argue against them.

Risk compensation theory underlines the need for more safety, not less. If people naturally tend to take on more risk because they feel safe, then we need to mitigate that riskier behaviour, not encourage it.

We are witnessing this in the current pandemic, with cases rising because people are thinking it won't happen to them.

BTW, interesting factoid about safety. Before I retired, I worked as a consultant to EDF Energy, who run the nuclear power staton fleet. Needless to say, they take safety EXTREMELY seriously, even us office staff were expected to scrupulously observe safety procedures, even things like hanging a jacket on the back of a chair were banned, and holding onto handrails when going up or down stairs was mandatory. Our safety office would publish and circulate reports of any safety-related incident and we were expected to discuss it, and everyone had the power to call out and stop anyactivity if they observed a breach of safety rules.

Anyway, one thing we were always warned about was losing focus. Apparently a common cause of accident was an operative finishing a job, turning round, and tripping over their toolbox. The thinking was that they lost concentration once the job was complete. Something to bear in mind for us home mechanocs - you can't relax until all the tools are put away and the worksite is fully cleared down.

Ah, there is hope after all. If anybody is interested, I can recommend this book: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/9728/to-err-is-human-building-a-safer-health-system. It is directed towards health care, but has a lot of history, examples, statistics, research and principles that has general application. Now time for tea, then buckle up (mandatory) seat belt, switch on (mandatory) DRLs and go for an afternoon drive in Lady Marion.Later I might go sailing with a friend, wearing a (mandatory) life jacket when on deck or inthe cockpit. Tonight an excercise trip on my bicycle, having (mandatory) lights front and rear. I live happily with that.
Regards to you all!
Cheers,
Robbie

Yip, bought one of them since my accident as well. Isn't hind sight a wonderful thing. I also left the pint or so of dried blood on the chain bar as a reminder not to be so stupid in future ☺️

And tomorrow morning I'll cock a leg over my 155bhp bike. No DRL, no ABS, no Traction Control, no Idiot lights (removed) and have a blast out with my mates. No other safety equipment mandated bar my £25 'Piss Pot' helmet.

I will also wear jeans, jacket and gloves, because it'll be cold and it will keep me warm and safer. However I am very pleased that (currently) this is my choice rather than by compulsion.

Ultimately, we all have different views on how much risk we want to accept in our lives, but state control takes away that freedom of choice from all of us.

As I said before, constantly mandating for stupidity is a race to the bottom, and we could ultimately lose the things we enjoy. No ABS/Traction Control/Air Bags/Lane assist on your Morgan? Sorry, you can't use them on the road.......

"No-one in their right mind would argue against them"


Here, hold my beer!!

As is usual in these conversations we end up conflating two issues .... H&S at work and personal risk acceptance.

The Health and Safety at Work Act is a fine thing and approproate when dealing with the welfare of 'captive' audiences like employees and customers .... it prevents businesses reverting to the 'Dark Satanic Mills' mindset in order to maximise profit to the detriment of their workforce's health and wellbeing (maybe not so much in Leicester or Bradford but that's another story )

It doesn't apply to individuals going about their leisure activities ...there are certain areas of life like driving etc where some infringement on personal choice is deemed acceptable ....usually when using machinery in a public setting.

This is quite limited .... and so it should be ...if H&S at W criteria were to be applied to private life then you can kiss goodbye to rock-climbing, mountain walking, horse-riding, motorcycling, surfing, skiing.... the list would be endless .... no more Morgans or vintage cars as their safety equipment is sub-optimal .... we'd all be in the same 2 ton SUVs from whichever manufacturer faked the crash-test most convincingly.

As it is, in our private lives we still very largely operate on the basis of adults making their own decisions ..... does this always end well? ... nope!. But the alternative is such a proscribed half life of reduced experience that we should run a mile (or maybe not run in case we trip ) from more and more safety legislation in areas where it affects no-one but ourselves.

K

Ps ... before someone brings up the 'burden to the NHS' argument .... the biggest burden on the NHS is from the couch and the kitchen .... not the horse-riders, surfers etc etc ..... 'safe' idleness and inaction rather than an active, if slightly more risky, life.

After all, you can always exercise your adult choice and don full body armour to open a can of soup if you wish .... just don't make me do it

Robbie, Neurosurgeon eh one saved my life 10 years ago