Should flashlights have safety features built-in?

[1138]

There's been a few threads recently on CPF where lights have exploded or had tailcaps pop off, which is theorized to be caused by batteries venting in a waterproof light, causing the pressure to build up too much. Even something as simple as an ITP A3 with a AAA battery is said to have exploded and caused some hand injuries. Leaving aside the anecdotal nature of that story in the interests of erring on the side of caution, it seems that there are risks associated with waterproof lights.

For the sake of consumer safety, should these lights be designed with features that reduce the occurrence of these incidents? In the case of the ITP A3, if it actually was the battery venting, then it seems that explosions are not user-preventable (the light is rated for alkalines, you can't mix old / new cells in a single cell light, you can't tell by looking at the battery that it's bad). In that case, shouldn't the lights be designed to have some sort of safety feature? I'd hate to learn one day that someone lost an eye because of an exploding flashlight.

In a related question, are there any compact, general-purpose lights (as opposed to say, intrinsically safe or specialty lights like dive lights and / or industrial lights) that do have safety features to prevent some of these problems? Preferably using standard batteries (AA, AAA) that the general public uses, since this safety issue is more of a concern for lights I give to other people.

 

[Flying Turtle]

I'm sorry for the very, very few people that have ever been injured by their flashlights. However, I believe in most (99.99%) of those cases user neglect was probably the ultimate cause. In the seven years I've been hanging around here I can think of maybe three mentions of "exploding lights".

I'll be glad to take my chances.

Geoff

 

[alpg88]

sounds like nonsence to me.

 

[parnass]

Flashlights should incorporate reverse polarity protection so they are not damaged if batteries are inserted backwards.

 

[Illum]

Certain older flashlights like the SL PP4AA Lux has hydrogen conversion pellets and positive pressure relief

Reverse polarity should be no harder than an extruded nonconductive washer from the head region.

Positive pressure relief can be done on metal lights while still maintaining water resistance, unlike the Pelican M6 who just drilled a hole in the body.

lock out features should be considered

adjustable spring tension should prevent some leaks caused by overly tight tolerances

Alkaline LED lights should incorporate drivers [not just step-up] that cuts out when cells reach 0.8V CCV, any less your asking for a leak, NIMH/NiCD should be higher to prevent overdischarge, Li-ion within 3.8V, Li-Mn...well, mod some thermistors near the battery contacts, if everything fails theres always a resettable thermal fuse to prevent thermal runaway from the cells

 

[420light]

Safety features on a flashlight, sounds like a little over the top. Though it would suck to have one blow up in your hand.

 

[LEDninja]

Safety features on a flashlight, sounds like a little over the top.

Safety features on a flashlight is a must if you work in a hazardous area. Where any tiny spark can cause a massive explosion that levels blocks or kill hundreds of people. Oilfields, refineries, chemical plants, natural gas plants, propane transfer stations to name a few.
The flashlights used there and in fire trucks have to be certified for hazardous locations: Class 1 Div 1 or Class 1 Div 2 depending on location.

Some of the features of these flashlights:
Vents in the body so no pressure buildup; catalyst pills to neutralize any hydrogen released by the battery. Most of them have a plastic body so a drop on to a stone or concrete floor would not cause a spark.

The ITP A3 explosion is minor compared to the TK Monster Explosion. Check out the damage in the pictures in the 1st post.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=262234

 

[kramer5150]

EMPHATIC NO. At least not in the sense of mandated, regulated government requirements :sick2::green:...

As a consumer I want the freedom of choice. I should have the right to blow my nuts off if I want too with a Lithium loaded pipe bomb in my pocket.

Then again, I would also want the option to choose products for their added safety features.

I am in favor of added safety enhancements, but I do not want them to be forced upon me by some bureaucracy. It should be my personal choice... or not at all.

 

[Lynx_Arc]

I think most people have never had a flashlight hurt them far far fewer than cell phones IMO. If you were to mandate safety features the prices of all lights below $20 would go up 50% and most other lights would go up $10 or more. I vote no, and let those needing safer lights buy the ones designed for that purpose. It is possible you could slip and fall on a kitchen fork and severly hurt yourself so we should put safety features on them.... IMO that is more likely than a flashlight explosion.

 

[1138]

I'm not suggesting that there be government mandated safety features; such features should only be regulated for widespread problems, which this doesn't seem to be.

But I'm kind of worried about lights that are given as gifts. Would you warn people to whom you give a light that they should never aim it at themselves or anyone else? Or would you simply assume that the risk is negligible and not mention it to them?

I think that clear warnings in the flashlight packaging is necessary.

 

[420light]

Safety features on a flashlight is a must if you work in a hazardous area. Where any tiny spark can cause a massive explosion that levels blocks or kill hundreds of people. Oilfields, refineries, chemical plants, natural gas plants, propane transfer stations to name a few.

Well, I will not lie. I did not think about this, so I stand corrected. If a small corrective measure can prevent a big catastrophe then .

But as kramer5150 said:
I am in favor of added safety enhancements, but I do not want them to be forced upon me by some bureaucracy. It should be my personal choice... or not at all.

 

[C.F.Burgess Battery]

Some of the features of these flashlights:
Vents in the body so no pressure buildup; catalyst pills to neutralize any hydrogen released by the battery. Most of them have a plastic body so a drop on to a stone or concrete floor would not cause a spark.

Another safety feature is a spring action "circuit breaker" that seperates the bulb from the battery when dropped ... and , yes , plastic body to prevent sparking ...

 

[Ken_McE]

Everything Kramer5150 said.

 

[John_Galt]

Everything Kramer5150 said.

+2

 

[Tempest UK]

SureFire already has the LockOut features on their tailcaps. Using this feature would have avoided a number of the reported failures on CPF.

Having a safety feature available doesn't mean that it will be used.

Regards,
Tempest

 

[1138]

As a consumer I want the freedom of choice. I should have the right to blow my nuts off if I want too with a Lithium loaded pipe bomb in my pocket.

I don't think I can agree with that in general, especially if the device in question is that dangerous. That same pipe bomb could harm others around you when it explodes. Even if the risk is negligible for the particular case of flashlights, that only says that you don't need to regulate flashights. Regulation is still necessary when the expected cost of the risk is higher than the expected cost of the regulation.

The last statement is predicated on the fact that there are costs associated with each risk that goes beyond the person who takes on the risk, and injury to others is one of them. So it's not as simple as saying that you should have the one and only choice; it's a matter of balancing the cost of the risk with the cost of the regulation.

I know libertarianism is popular but its principles aren't always ideal.

 

[jtradio]

Flashlights: perhaps the last frontier of non-"you are completely stupid" safety warnings?

Safety is an interesting point though: I wouldn't want something to blow up in my hands.

 

[420light]

I should have the right to blow my nuts off if I want too.

This could make a good sig line.:nana::laughing:

 

[kramer5150]

I don't think I can agree with that in general, especially if the device in question is that dangerous. That same pipe bomb could harm others around you when it explodes. Even if the risk is negligible for the particular case of flashlights, that only says that you don't need to regulate flashights. Regulation is still necessary when the expected cost of the risk is higher than the expected cost of the regulation.

The last statement is predicated on the fact that there are costs associated with each risk that goes beyond the person who takes on the risk, and injury to others is one of them. So it's not as simple as saying that you should have the one and only choice; it's a matter of balancing the cost of the risk with the cost of the regulation.

I know libertarianism is popular but its principles aren't always ideal.

The cost of mandated bureaucratic regulation will be high and will drive up the cost of the product to the consumer. It always has throughout US history, in every industry the feds have stepped in and regulated. I don't see this scenario being any different. With our countries national debt and my local states financial troubles I don't think this would be a wise economic decision.

The odds of a flashlight flame/fire induced injury are statistically very low, and the odds of second hand personal injury are even lower. I am willing to take my chances, and am happy with the status quo.

Your last statement is backwards... Liberal ideals typically favor big government and federal regulation, conservatism = less/smaller government.

I am stepping out of this thread Before I get banned for discussing politics. I've made my point already, peace.

 

[TKC]

I'm sorry for the very, very few people that have ever been injured by their flashlights. However, I believe in most (99.99%) of those cases user neglect was probably the ultimate cause. In the seven years I've been hanging around here I can think of maybe three mentions of "exploding lights".

I'll be glad to take my chances.

Geoff

I am with my friend here on this.