Helmet camera may have caused injury.

[shouldbeinbed]

please tell me what the difference between hitting the camera or hitting a protruding pointy rock? The rock is harder surely anyway. The helmet failed. end of. No company wants to admit they sell s***. They will try anything to save their reputation .

I'm deliberately avoiding the helmets good/bad angle as I'd rather gouge my eyes out than join that futile argument again. Re rock v camera, they're both examples of drawing pin physics really, condensing the same force into a smaller area thus increasing the chance of a failure at that point as opposed to a more broadly spread impact onto a flatter surface. But this is just a suggested scenario, nobody is taking it as gospel, merely kicking round the ideas and possibilities that particular suggestion presents.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Major difference being that we can choose to attach the camera, before we set off. We can't choose the impact after any incident.
Dogcam gave the link.

To be totally speculative & pedantic. IF it did turn out to be the camera that caused the failure then the helmet instructions would have the lawyers interest, do they preclude attaching stuff or advise there may be a risk associated with doing so VS is it a tacit understanding that any 'modification' would invalidate whatever protective effect it offered.

all purely academic thinking right now though.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

This is, potentially, more interesting than helmets good or helmets bad. This has an opportunity to bring out a different issue, one of helmets not all they are made out to be and not developing appreciably whilst milking an unquestioning clientele.

I agree, it lends a new angle & nuances to the debate but do you reckon it'll pan out that way if the ardent pro & anti's get here

anyhow, work beckons.

 

[jarlrmai]

My camera is a tiny 808 attached to my hat by rubber bands.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Maybe the holes and rawlplugs used to attach the camera to the helmet somehow structurally altered it.

 

[classic33]

View it this way. Your a helmet wearer who uses a camera and are involved in an incident.
The other side turns round and says part of the injuries you sufferred were your fault because you chose to wear a helmet camera.
As a result of this choice by you, they are lowering their offer to you. On the personal injury side.

 

[classic33]

Would you wear something you bought to record any such incident again though?

 

[classic33]

And a question on the use of cameras has been moved to Helmets & Headphones!
Of which it is neither.

 

[classic33]

That is quite right, seeing as the issue here is helmet failure and the possible causes.

In the example given.
I started the thread, trying to put it from the camera wearers side of things. I can still use the camera on one of two head mounts.
Something bought to record such incidents may, using it loosely, be used against you, if you are involved in any incident.

 

[jarlrmai]

It's so you can record what you see, it gives a record of what you were looking at, the shoulder also moves when you shoulder check.

Many guys also have cameras recording a rear view.

 

[StuartG]

Anything and everything can be dangerous. Anything and everything can be lethal.

Surely the point here is whether the event was both predictable and probable to some degree. Is there a pattern of these incidents or are we going to legislate or litigate about a freak event? We have little useful information on this crash and, I assume, even less numbers. Till that's resolved I'm outta here ...

 

[ufkacbln]

Why does the camera have to be on the helmet? Couldn't it be mounted on the rider's shoulder? It would mean the end of the footage swerving away from the focus of attention when the wearer glances over their shoulder, if nothing else.

THis is important though

In one case I was accused of not looking where I was going and had pulled out ibn front of an overtaking vehicle.

It was the "lifesaver" that clearly showed me looking behind and the van overtaking me at a pinch point that got the driver a formal warning

 

[Shut Up Legs]

Why does the camera have to be on the helmet? Couldn't it be mounted on the rider's shoulder? It would mean the end of the footage swerving away from the focus of attention when the wearer glances over their shoulder, if nothing else.

If someone glances over his shoulder, then you could also argue that what's over his shoulder is the new focus of attention.

 

[classic33]

Can I just point out the obvious? The helmet shattering didn't lead to serious head injuries, as the Torygraph strapline suggests. Hitting the ground at speed did.

Camera never reported as shattering though.

 

[classic33]

Can I just point out the obvious? The helmet shattering didn't lead to serious head injuries, as the Torygraph strapline suggests. Hitting the ground at speed did.

Camera never reported as shattering though.