Post by: Johnno on March 16, 2015, 13:15:50
I've been looking for a cheap but good 1080p bullet type camera but the reviews in my price range have had bad reviews, so i plumbed for one of these instead. Should be here next week and I'll report back and do a recording for you to see.
:link: Genuine SJCam SJ4000 M10 Sport Action Camera Cam Waterproof Full HD FPV Support | eBay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/291380154623?_trksid=p2059210.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT)
Post by: CraigB on March 16, 2015, 13:32:02
Post by: Johnno on March 16, 2015, 15:29:00
First time I've seen this site , just looked at their website and they're about 20 odd minutes away from here
Post by: CraigB on March 16, 2015, 15:42:20
Post by: Johnno on March 25, 2015, 13:26:56
:link: SJCAM M10 Black Action Sport Cam Camera Waterproof Full HD 1080p Video Helmetcam | eBay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/381087035469?limghlpsr=true&hlpv=2&ops=true&viphx=1&hlpht=true&lpid=108&chn=ps&device=c&adtype=pla&crdt=0&ff3=1&ff11=ICEP3.0.0-L&ff12=67&ff13=80&ff14=108&ff19=0)
http://vid1092.photobucket.com/albums/i411/tfc475/m11.mp4 (http://vid1092.photobucket.com/albums/i411/tfc475/m11.mp4)
Post by: Dazzler on March 25, 2015, 16:24:39
My M10 cam arrived the other day so I went out to give a test. Video quality in Bucket is poor they must down grade it to 720 or less.
Thanks Johnno .. I see what you mean about the resolution... Still enjoyed the video though (up to a point)*
One of my Brothers got taken out permanently on 21st May 2013 by a negligent driver while he was riding a very similar scooter :sweating: :blubber:
The sensation of speed is a lot higher on a bike (it has been over 30 years since I last rode a motorcycle) :cool:
Post by: rustynutz on March 25, 2015, 23:52:42
Couldn't help but notice some of the car drivers were jumping the gun at the traffic lights....perfect way to be T boned.... :head_butt:
Johnno, how is your cam mounted to your helmet?
Here in OZ we're having issues with some overzealous cops trying to say that mounting a camera on the helmet voids the Australian Standards so there have been riders booked for not wearing a compliant helmet... :fum:
Post by: Aussie Keith on March 26, 2015, 08:45:29
That looks pretty good though.
Post by: Johnno on March 26, 2015, 10:40:44
The video was 1hr 17mins long and Bucket only lets you have files 500mb or 10mins long.
So I chopped it down and used a free program called handbrake to optimize the video for the web.
But when i playback the video on the laptop it looks like the original
sorry to hear about your brother Dazzler
Post by: Johnno on March 26, 2015, 11:34:55
its attached by one of the parts that came with it, there's 2 different types supplied, one you can bolt on and one with a sticky back.
I used the sticky back and its very strong, once its on it cant be removed
Its a tough call on the standards, I know that if you get you lid resprayed it can cause a reaction to the lid and weaken the structure if you don't use the correct paint.
I watched a program on the TV some years back where they drilled a small hole in the lid and did a impact test and it was surprising how weak the helmet became.
I might be wrong here, but isn't this the cause of Michael Schumacher's injury's, he was using a action cam attached to the top of his ski helmet and when he head butted the rock the helmet shattered.
On my type of helmet I can't fit the cam on top due to the sun-visor slider is fitted there, the black strip shown in the pic.
:link: Bikecam Photos by tfc475 | Photobucket (http://s1092.photobucket.com/user/tfc475/library/Bikecam)
Post by: rustynutz on March 26, 2015, 12:13:55
Yeah, I can understand that drilling any holes in a helmet would most likely weaken it but, like you most riders seem to use double sided tape or such to attach a cam.
The trouble here in OZ is that the standards are very much open to interpretation, with some police trying to say that adding a cam makes the helmet non compliant. Others say the standards are only relevant at the point of sale....
This is being tested in the Frankston Magistrates Court at the moment....or would be except it's been adjourned a number of times so police can look into things further....
You've gotta laugh, if Police are having trouble getting info on the standards, how on earth can the average rider be expected to know them? :snigger: :head_butt:
Post by: Wingerdave on March 26, 2015, 12:33:15
Now, drilling holes in a helmet to fix a camera would make any conformity with standards void (other than the holes put there by the manufacturer) and some adhesives can weaken the helmet shell. I'm sure nobody knows the make up of all adhesives on the market.
it is all the rage, but there are very few mounting systems for helmets, and even fewer that are safely mountable so that they don't fly off or catch the wind to the extent that your head is constantly vibrating.
The only way round the compliancy thing would be for helmet and cam manufactures to come up with some kind of universal attachment system (Yeah, right !!!)
Post by: Johnno on March 26, 2015, 12:57:54
The helmet itself as not changed from the manufacturer's standards all your doing is adding a piece of plastic which can break off with the slightest of knocks.
many years ago I bought a ex Ford Anglia rally car, it was a right shed, every panel had a ding in it and it looked rough as a bears arse, got pulled over by a normal cop and he had a look and said the car was unsafe, it was totally stripped out to the bare minimum, and the steering wheel column didn't have a cover so all the wires were exposed and he was trying to do me for that saying it could cause a fire if it was rubbing against anything.
I said to him ' No your talking through your backside get a traffic officer over to inspect it' which 2 traffic cops cars came ,they they had a good laugh at the state of the car but everything was legal and told me to go on my way
My argue was even if it had the normal cover on it would not change anything , just cosmetically
Post by: rustynutz on March 26, 2015, 12:59:38
The only "fix" would be to give the standards a complete overhaul....and then make them freely available because, as things stand it would cost you hundreds of dollars to obtain a copy of the current ones and you'd still probably be none the wiser... :lol:
Currently we have the situation where some helmets are legal in one State but if you happen to cross into another State then you are now wearing a non compliant helmet....
Oh, and just getting back to helmet cams, our motorcycle mounted coppers use them....
Post by: rustynutz on March 26, 2015, 13:01:58
The helmet itself as not changed from the manufacturer's standards all your doing is adding a piece of plastic which can break off with the slightest of knocks.
Quite right, and this is one of the arguments against these overzealous coppers...
Post by: Johnno on March 26, 2015, 13:05:27
:link: Motorcycle helmet cams legal, but are they safe? - Motorbike Writer (http://motorbikewriter.com/motorcycle-helmet-cams-legal-but-are-they-safe/)
Post by: Johnno on March 26, 2015, 13:23:37
:link: Wiggle | Pivothead Kudu Action Camera Sunglasses | Helmet Cameras (http://www.wiggle.co.uk/pivothead-kudu-action-camera-sunglasses/?lang=en&curr=GBP&dest=1&kpid=5360687436&sku=5360687436&ci_src=18615224&ci_sku=5360687436uk&utm_source=google&utm_term&utm_campaign=Accessories&utm_medium=base&utm_content=sN34wzJi3_dc%7cpcrid%7c%7cpkw%7c%7cpmt%7c%7cprd%7c5360687436uk)
:link: Close Racing with the Pivothead HD Camera - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyqA0T2XCw0)
Post by: rustynutz on March 26, 2015, 13:30:36
Post by: rustynutz on March 26, 2015, 13:36:15
:link: CRAZY SPEEDS 200mph On-Bike Lap! Isle of Man TT races! Michael Dunlop - YouTube (https://youtu.be/YWZG1nhgwgg)
Post by: Johnno on March 26, 2015, 13:40:33
:link: Cyclists, mums threatened by helmet law - Motorbike Writer (http://motorbikewriter.com/cyclists-mums-threatened-helmet-law/)
Post by: Johnno on March 26, 2015, 13:50:30
Post by: rustynutz on March 26, 2015, 13:53:49
just found this, and I think they are taking the piss
:link: Cyclists, mums threatened by helmet law - Motorbike Writer (http://motorbikewriter.com/cyclists-mums-threatened-helmet-law/)
Unfortunately they aren't.....now you can see why there needs to be an overhaul of the standards... :undecided:
Post by: Johnno on March 26, 2015, 14:29:56
Next you'll have to fit a trailer to the bike with a filing cabinet to keep all your paperwork in.
I would of read it as, when purchasing a new helmet it must be accompanied with compliance paperwork for said item, not with you all the time?
Post by: rustynutz on March 27, 2015, 00:37:12
Check out this website, it can explain things much better than I can and you'll see what a mess the Australian Standards are: :link: OzHelmets Index (http://crossroadz.com.au/OzHelmets/index.html)
Post by: Johnno on March 27, 2015, 01:40:39
So not all the states have the same standards, NSW seems to penalty's as long as your arm. So what happens if you travel to another state if the standards are different?
why can't they Simplify it like we have. I found one state that mentions that EU helmet's are legal and the visor info is out of date where it say's Note. Integral visor's have been allowed for at least 10 years now because mine has it fitted, but we can't have a tinted fixed visor and we can wear sunglasses. But I don't understand your rules if you can wear sunglasses or not and tinted visors
Post by: rustynutz on March 27, 2015, 02:28:38
Queensland has shown the way with allowing helmets that pass European Standards to be sold but of course that now makes these helmets non compliant with the current Australian Standards in the other States.
As for tinted visors, that's opening another can of worms.... :head_butt:
:link: Tinted visor, helmet camera fines ?wrong? - Motorbike Writer (http://motorbikewriter.com/tinted-visor-helmet-camera-fines/)
Post by: neptune on March 27, 2015, 11:31:25
http://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=646507658769929&fref=nf (http://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=646507658769929&fref=nf)
Post by: Johnno on March 27, 2015, 12:18:18
That link from Neptune is a bit frightening, how easy the helmet smashed with the none compliance helmet. My helmet in the sharks report got 5 stars and of the test the front flip up stayed shut 90% of the time in a impact, not bad for a £90 helmet.
Post by: rustynutz on March 27, 2015, 12:24:45
A small video on bike helmets
http://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=646507658769929&fref=nf (http://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=646507658769929&fref=nf)
Reminds me of the Bell Helmet advertisements from way back in the 70's???..."If you have a $10 head, buy a $10 helmet". :wacko:
Post by: rustynutz on April 16, 2015, 02:31:58
The trouble here in OZ is that the standards are very much open to interpretation, with some police trying to say that adding a cam makes the helmet non compliant. Others say the standards are only relevant at the point of sale....
This is being tested in the Frankston Magistrates Court at the moment....or would be except it's been adjourned a number of times so police can look into things further....
You've gotta laugh, if Police are having trouble getting info on the standards, how on earth can the average rider be expected to know them? :snigger: :head_butt:
Surprise, surprise, this "test case" has again been adjourned (until July 10) while the police prosecutors try to prove their case....
Fair dinkum, how much time do they need? If the police prosecutors can’t fathom the complex laws to justify their fines, how can riders be expected to comply? :head_butt:
Post by: Wingerdave on April 16, 2015, 08:08:04
As for tinted visors....... just ban them after dusk or during inclement weather.
Seems like common sense to me.
Post by: rustynutz on September 16, 2015, 07:50:00
The trouble here in OZ is that the standards are very much open to interpretation, with some police trying to say that adding a cam makes the helmet non compliant. Others say the standards are only relevant at the point of sale....
This is being tested in the Frankston Magistrates Court at the moment....or would be except it's been adjourned a number of times so police can look into things further....
You've gotta laugh, if Police are having trouble getting info on the standards, how on earth can the average rider be expected to know them? :snigger: :head_butt:
Surprise, surprise, this "test case" has again been adjourned (until July 10) while the police prosecutors try to prove their case....
Fair dinkum, how much time do they need? If the police prosecutors can’t fathom the complex laws to justify their fines, how can riders be expected to comply? :head_butt:
Helmet camera deemed illegal
BY MARK HINCHLIFFE IN MOTORBIKE NEWS — 16 SEP, 2015
A Victorian Magistrate has upheld a $150 fine against a motorcycle rider for wearing a helmet camera, finding that the relevant laws were publicly available despite evidence that they weren’t.
Defendant Max Lichenbaum says he is disappointed and is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court through his lawyers Maurice Blackburn.
Legal representative Malcolm Cumming says they tried to obtain the laws first by phoning VicRoads, but were told they could not give them out over the phone.
“So we sent someone to VicRoads, but the receptionist was not sure and asked someone in a back room who said, no, we can’t have them; they’re available by subscription only,” Malcolm says.
The laws used to be available in a public library on the ground floor, but it has been closed and they are now held on the fifth floor which does not have public access under tighter anti-terrorism measures.
Malcolm says this evidence was presented in court, but Frankston Court Magistrate Crisp made the point that the lawyers needed to prove that on the date of the offence the relevant Australian Standard was not available.
“He wasn’t satisfied that, in all probability, it wasn’t available.”
The other legal argument was that the standard applies at the point of manufacture and cannot be unapproved.
However, the Magistrate found that there was an ongoing obligation to comply with the standard.
“This is inconsistent with the laws in Queensland and South Australia. In their road rules, they make it clear and explicit that road rule 270 means that you comply at manufacture and that’s the end of the story.
“I’m very disappointed with the verdict and we will be advising Max about appeal options to the Supreme Court.
“Max was also very disappointed as he is always a good risk manager and always wears full leathers and boots and uses a helmet camera to manage risk, improve driver behaviour and as evidence after the fact.
“We’re now going to ask the State Government for legislative change to remove the ambiguity and make it clear that as in Queensland and South Australia, once it’s approve it can’t be unapproved.”
Media and observers packed the Frankston Magistrates Court, including cyclist representatives such as Dallas Goldburg of the World Naked Bike Ride.
He said the legal interpretation also affected cyclists.
“We use cameras to protect ourselves,” he says.
In Queensland, a former police minister even encouraged cyclists to wear helmet cameras to collect evidence in the case of an incident.
“You don’t get given the government standard when you buy a helmet,” he says.
“We’re also amazed that GoPro have no formal comment on it.
“You can now buy a GoPro at Target, Woolies, Kmart and Dick Smith, but there’s nothing to show there is a warning that they can’t be on a helmet.
It’s the helmet that’s not approved, not the camera, or the 3M adhesive, or the standard at the point of manufacturer or at the point of being picked up by the police.”
Source: :link: Helmet camera deemed illegal - Motorbike Writer (http://motorbikewriter.com/helmet-camera-deemed-illegal/)
Post by: rustynutz on September 16, 2015, 07:54:39
Here's hoping they do appeal.....
Post by: Lakes on September 16, 2015, 10:47:24
I was born on a day the sun didn't shine :lol:
Post by: rustynutz on September 16, 2015, 13:21:01
Post by: Doggie 1 on September 16, 2015, 13:26:59
Post by: Lakes on September 17, 2015, 00:17:03
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that, John....you actually have to comply with the rules of the State you're passing through... :(
Rusty i know as back in 81 82 we had helmet exemptions in NSW, a few of my mates had them road to South Aussie, the cops tried to book us for other things like i think one was no front number plate but in NSW only issued with one. we all went to court six months latter the judge took our side, we walked outside the cops had issued more defects we went back saw the Judge he gave the cops a good roasting only need to comply with home state laws when traveling through.
but you might be right about the camera but what is the issue there?
not that i want to have a camera in a car or on a bike.
Post by: Lakes on September 17, 2015, 00:25:11
what other states don't ihave safety inspections each year?
Post by: rustynutz on September 17, 2015, 01:50:18
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that, John....you actually have to comply with the rules of the State you're passing through... :(
Rusty i know as back in 81 82 we had helmet exemptions in NSW, a few of my mates had them road to South Aussie, the cops tried to book us for other things like i think one was no front number plate but in NSW only issued with one. we all went to court six months latter the judge took our side, we walked outside the cops had issued more defects we went back saw the Judge he gave the cops a good roasting only need to comply with home state laws when traveling through.
Sorry John, I should have said you actually have to comply with the road rules of the State you're passing through...
One such example is, in Victoria P1 licence holders can drive at the posted speed limits yet if they venture into NSW they are limited to 90kph...
When it comes to helmets, Queensland and more recently Victoria now allow helmets that don't meet Australian design rules but meet certain European standards. Unfortunately these are only legal in those States. Cross the border and you're open to being booked for wearing a non compliant helmet...
but you might be right about the camera but what is the issue there?
not that i want to have a camera in a car or on a bike.
The issue is that the police are saying that by fitting a camera to a helmet, the helmet is then not complying with the ADR's so is not a legal helmet. The actual ADR's are as clear as mud and wide open to different interpretations.
Post by: Lakes on September 18, 2015, 01:01:11
i would not ride without a full face helmet now as when i wanted to race the helmet had to comply with track regulations, also if you are quicker than 11.99 second quarter mile on a MC you must have full face. so for me one had to do it all. & when i go racing i'm never slower than 11.99.
That has to be a poorly thought out speed law limiting red p platers to 90kph, so i agree, as speed limit mostly 100kph. but i see too many interstate drivers here driving less than 30KPH below the speed limit, that illegal but i've never seen the law inforced .
it's about time we got a national licence & road law & got rid of state governments simplify the system lower overheads.
but no one will be happy.
about the helmets QLD & VIC allow, they must be novelty helmets? as at the race track does not matter what state ( but regional tracks could be different ) you have to have a helmet to meet standards no older that 5 years & meet standards set 5 years or less before has to meet AU & NZ design rules too. wonder why QLD & VIC changed , also to best of my knowledge , there is no helmet exemptions in Australia now but someone from WA said they have them still over there seems strange.
Post by: Phil №❶ on September 18, 2015, 01:16:47
Post by: rustynutz on September 18, 2015, 02:38:01
about the helmets QLD & VIC allow, they must be novelty helmets?
Not novelty, John...just normal helmets that haven't been able to be used legally in Australia previously due to them not having been tested to the Australian Standards..
Having helmets tested can be an expensive business and with the Australian market being fairly small, many manufacturers don't bother...
Now, at least shoppers have more choice and can now purchase a range of helmets from overseas. :goodjob:
Post by: ibrokeit on September 18, 2015, 04:21:26
Or the helmet covers - I can see someone trying to say they are distracting - :link: Motorbike Funny Heeds Crazy Helmet Covers Motorcycle Hlemetcover Cookie Monster | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/MOTORBIKE-FUNNY-HEEDS-CRAZY-HELMET-COVERS-MOTORCYCLE-HLEMETCOVER-COOKIE-MONSTER-/321550263563)
Post by: rustynutz on September 18, 2015, 04:52:15
Post by: CraigB on September 18, 2015, 05:36:57
Post by: rustynutz on September 29, 2015, 07:07:29
BY MARK HINCHLIFFE
21 SEP, 2015
Riders run the risk of a fine if they remove the helmet visor protective film under the controversial ruling last week by a Victorian Magistrate, says a helmet law expert.
Australian Motorcycle Council helmet chairman Guy Stanford says the verdict to uphold a fine against a motorcyclist for wearing a helmet camera also has bizarre implications for motorcyclists, cyclists and even mums with babies in their cars.
“The Victorian decision was on the basis that ‘approved’ means ‘compliant’,” he says.
“That means none of the labels may be removed, not even those on the protective film across the visor. The same applies to bicycle helmets and also to child restraints.”
He says the Magistrate’s verdict that the helmet must continue to comply after sale means all of these products approved by Australian Standards must continue to comply with the same requirements as when offered for sale.
Not all states have the same interpretation of the standards, but Guy describes the Victorian situation as “idiocy”.
According to the Victorian Ruling, Guys says the literal wording for the child restraint standard means you would have to put a child in a restraint then put the child restraint and the child into a single package.
“I guess that we will see the Victorian coppers lining up at day-care centres and schools,” he says.
“More tickets to write there in one spot than spending hours rounding up isolated riders. They must be rubbing their hands with glee!”
He says cyclists will also have similar problems to motorcyclists after the verdict.
“No more anti-magpie zip-ties, no more lights or cameras on helmets. It’ll be a State Revenue windfall.
“The Victorian Parliament appears happy to allow an unelected legislature in the form of a committee at Standards Australia to write law for Victoria.
“VicRoads, through privately owned stickers, gives regulatory protection to these products. It’s a great arrangement for profits all round.
“We’re forced to comply with the sales requirements of a private document of a private company or get expensive fines and loss of license points.
“Who is actually running Victoria? All we see is policed market control that costs us money and removes choices.”
The defendant in the Victorian case is yet to decide whether he will appeal the decision, but the Independent Riders Group has pledged financial and moral support if he does.
Meanwhile, he says the NSW Roads and Maritime Services is testing helmets to see if there is any increased injury risk from a mounted camera.
“They have done a fair bit and we know the generalities, but no results have been made public,” Guy says.
“With the current Victorian idiocy, they are keeping quiet. So would I.”
Source: :link: Fine risk for removing helmet visor stickers - Motorbike Writer (http://motorbikewriter.com/dont-remove-helmet-visor-stickers/)
Post by: Lakes on September 29, 2015, 08:36:57
i wonder how they carry out the tests & how much that costs us tax payers?
Post by: Wingerdave on September 30, 2015, 13:16:44
Life is simple when one rule applies to all (European Union-wide). Well, that's Federalism for ya :crazy2:
Post by: rustynutz on September 30, 2015, 13:53:04
Post by: CraigB on September 30, 2015, 14:08:38
we have some really weird, actually really ignorant lawmakers... :crazy1:And they all seem to reside in Victoria :D I never hear of all these stupid rulings here in the West, I guess we must have some as well but as long as your not acting like an idiot or giving cheek back to an officer then the friendly local police around here don't really care :)
Post by: Wingerdave on September 30, 2015, 14:10:52
And yes, we have some REALLY stupid laws over here. In Germany, for instance a motor bike with a trailer has a speed limit of 60 kph... Even on the Motorway !!!!!! :crazy1:
On the other hand our law on traffic filtering for bikes is 20 kph (which is pretty safe because Belgians will do just about anything to block you, even when they're not in Belgium. Bunch of jealous $%*&s the Belgians).
Post by: rustynutz on February 14, 2016, 13:15:06
BY MARK HINCHLIFFE
12 FEB, 2016
A controversial case in which a rider was fined almost $300 for having a GoPro action camera on his helmet has been dismissed by a Melbourne Country Court judge.
It was the sixth time rider Max Lichenbaum had appeared before the court over the 2014 fine in what has been described as a farcical process and a waste of the court’s time on such a trivial matter.
After deliberating the case over night, Judge John Jordan simply said: “I set aside the magistrate’s verdict and dismiss the charge.”
On the previous appearance in court, the Magistrate reduced the fine to $150, but Max decided to fight the fine.
Pro bono defence counsel, Malcolm Cumming of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, says their defence argued that the Australian Standards only apply to a helmet when sold, the relevant rules are too difficult for the public to access ansd that there is no roadworthy test for helmets like there is for vehicles.
The judge agreed with the defence argument that the laws were not accessible and didn’t need to consider the other arguments.
Malcolm says while he is happy with the verdict, there is “still a lot of work to do” because the compliance issue is not resolved.
“The verdict means people who have been convicted in Victoria ought not to have been,” he says. “You can’t do anything retrospectively, but it means it is now an open question in relation to whether compliance is ongoing.”
He says it doesn’t mean all Australian riders, no matter whether they are motorcyclists or cyclists, should be able to attach a camera to their helmet.
Malcolm says they have a lot of lobbying to do on the Victorian Government to get some consistency with other states such as South Australia, ACT and Queensland.
Max says he doesn’t know if it was worth all the hassle and effort, but is happy with the result which he says is good for everyone.
“Hopefully it will help other riders,” he says.
Max was disappointed he was not able to make a statement in court when the charge was dismissed.
“I wanted to say I wear all the safety gear plus a camera on my helmet, yet someone who rides around wearing thongs and shorts, no gloves but a helmet, well that’s legal.”
Longtime helmet campaigner Wayne Carruthers says the long time for the judge to deliver a verdict was due to the lawyers calling into question the validity of the entire regulations which meant complex legal arguments.
He says common sense prevailed and a precedent set which will force State Regulators towards the unified ARR for setting of standards.
He says it is hoped helmet offences are separated into multiple items such as not wearing any helmet and wearing a helmet with the wrong visor.
“This case also has implications for bicycle helmets and child restraints as they are also treated in the same way as helmets and outside the normal safety standards systems used for all other vehicle components.
“Regardless of the win, we now have an example of police and prosecutors wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer money on a pointless exercise in power which can be used politically and in the mass media,” he says.
Source: :link: Judge dismisses helmet camera fine - Motorbike Writer (http://motorbikewriter.com/judge-dismisses-helmet-camera-fine/)
Post by: Shambles on February 14, 2016, 15:28:44
Off-Topic:I wonder what happened to @
Post by: eye30 on February 14, 2016, 15:45:15
“This case also has implications for bicycle helmets
Be interesting to see how this pans out......
Post by: Dazzler on February 14, 2016, 22:23:43
Post by: Doggie 1 on February 15, 2016, 00:33:30
It's a safety issue these days to have a camera and I don't see how a camera would reduce the effectiveness of a helmet.
Legislation needs to catch up though.
Post by: ibrokeit on February 15, 2016, 02:07:30
:wts:
It's a safety issue these days to have a camera and I don't see how a camera would reduce the effectiveness of a helmet.
Legislation needs to catch up though.
Uh huh - I agree. They should be allowed to wear cameras.
While I in no way think motorcyclists are blameness all the time (unlike how some motorcycling mates I hear speak) - as behaviors by some are down-right reckless - I totally agree that drivers of bigger vehicles, esp. cars, SUVs, 4x4s, seem to not see motorcyclists (even when they are/should be pretty obvious and following the road rules) more than with other vehicles. And many times it is driver of the larger vehicle at fault. Of course those drivers sometimes don't see vehicles their size or bigger - hence the numerous clips on the internet.
I don't know the history of the legislation - but I suspect it would have been, at some-point (if not now), based on having permanently fixed cosmetic protuberances (horns, spikes, etc. screwed/bolted on) that could get caught during an accident causing (further) injury to the wearer (such as breaking neck when it wouldn't have otherwise? - don't know just a guess) or possibly bystanders. Though if you are that close I suspect you would be getting injured anyway.
Unfortunately it can take a while for common sense to prevail.
Post by: neptune on February 15, 2016, 05:30:32
:link: Cyclist EXTREME close call vs Semi Trailer Truck! - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hVXhg8zvkI)