Over at Lourdes this weekend, team managers were presented with a letter from the world governing body for cycling - the UCI - informing them of a new ruling dictating that onboard cameras can now only be fixed to bikes, and that the governing body wishes to start a debate with team managers in regard to potential new conditions for the use of onboard cameras.
The new ruling dictates that with immediate effect, and for all cycling disciplines governed by the UCI, the use of onboard cameras is to be “
...solely authorised on bicycles”, i.e. the use of onboard cameras on a helmet or anywhere else on a rider’s body is forbidden.
In terms of the debate they wish to start, the first issue - the introduction of a liability exemption form - means that should a rider choose to ride with an onboard camera, they must sign a form which says that they do so at their own risk, i.e. should anything untoward happen out on track to the rider or anyone else affected, the UCI, the race organiser, team and sponsors are not liable should the incident be linked to the use of the camera. The second proposal concerns the liability of the camera manufacturer, in that they must provide the necessary insurance cover should anything arise as a result of the camera being used on a helmet. The final proposal centres around helmets themselves, and restates the current regulations on standards and unauthorised alterations.
What are the implications?With the internet rife with speculation as to whether it is safe for cameras to be mounted on helmets in motorsport, cycling and other activities, it’s not surprising that the UCI have come to this decision. Given riders are competing under the governing body's care, this new ruling is a safety-net the UCI is obliged to apply to ensure riders’ safety until, we can only assume, research is commissioned or further evidence uncovered which would allow the UCI to take a fully informed decision.
This move by the UCI shouldn't been seen as a negative one, but a managed approach in light of the pace in which people are adopting technologies such as onboard cameras and non-standard/experimental mounts. The rule puts riders' safety first, similar to decisions by AMA Motocross and other governing bodies. It’s clear that the UCI recognises the potential onboard cameras have for cycling, as only last year, Brian Cookson, the UCI’s President, stated:
"For me, embracing the future includes embracing innovation and selling our sport – in all its disciplines – better. Technology is key here, and you may have seen a number of innovations being tested in recent months – such as putting cameras into the heart of the [road racing] peloton – a move I fully support. Indeed here at the World Championships we are also investing in the testing of geolocation technology. All these developments have exciting implications across all disciplines – as the amazing helmet camera videos generated from Mountain Biking demonstrate so well".
Only time will tell if in the future, the UCI will designate which areas on a bike an onboard camera can be placed, as well as how helmet and camera manufacturers can work together to agree on what type of cameras and mounts are acceptable for the sport. In the meantime, the UCI should be commended for putting riders’ safety first, and this ruling does still allow fans to continue to enjoy watching the action, and for riders to use their footage as part of their preparations for race day.
No. These athletes are at the top of the sport, and they may forgo protection if it saves them 0.1 seconds. The UCI should mandate reasonable protective gear to eliminate any disadvantage for competitors who choose to wear protection. They shouldn't have to choose between winning and wearing protection.
Sticking an action cam to your helmet significantly increases the chances of a hard object penetrating the helmet. Fact.
makes sense
having a helmet mounted on a helmet also dramatically changes the interaction between the helmet and the ground, and a potential increase in friction (or sudden stop caused by the camera/mount snagging a ground obstacle) could cause serious head injury or break the rider's neck?
www.traumaticbraininjury.net/is-a-gopro-camera-responsible-for-michael-schumachers-severe-brain-injuries
Now should a rider have a choice? Yep - in principle. But in reality, UCI has a legal responsibility to set reasonable regulations that limit their liability and act accordingly. Because of dips hit law-suit happy idiots who are slowly giving the courts parental rights over everyone.
Theoretically...adding a camera to your helmet *might* increase it's likelihood of breaking during impact, possibly leading to injury. Practically speaking though, a downhill rider is far more likely to break their leg or get a massive contusion.
So, if this is not about revenue stream and all about rider safety, why would the UCI pass a rule relating to the use of helmet mounted cameras and f-all else regarding the rest of the body? "Can't wear a helmet cam, but you can ride down this here hill with just a helmet and some ridiculous TLD kit and a prayer". Seems specious to me especially in the absence of data to back up their ruling.
Helmet manu's - for the most part - aren't testing 3rd party attachments with respect the performance of their helmet. And they most likely never will because there are too many variables outside of their control to properly and economically do such testing. Without tests to say if it is safe or not, UCI doesn't really have an option here thanks to good ol' insurance companies and the legal "profession". I would be curious to know UCI's position for helmet-mounted cameras with helmets that have manufacturer-made integrated camera mounts… that seems to fall through the cracks of their rationale.
Not like MTB is the first sport to make such a ruling.
But I do agree that the overall safety rules are inconsistent as to where athletes are allowed to assume risk and where they are bound by regulation.
But having a camera attached to your personal protective equipment is a potential injury risk that is 100% eradicated by simply not having there in the first place.
Its a basic risk assesment. Asess the risks. Trees, rocks bycycles, high speed crashes, action camera...... So on.
If the risks can be removed do so. If not use ppe as a last resort ie helmet glove armour.
The action cam is not essential and can be removed.
Trees rocks and flying bicycles cannot be removed.
Looks like riders can still use them but they just sign over liability to themselves.
The UCI (under Brian Cookson) will continue to develop DH - it's a difficult juggling act, most rules are implemented for safety, and usually safety does not equal excitement...
But this isn't proven or disproven yet. I'm surprised GoPro hasn't put up the money to fund research to refute the claim because their stock valuation plummeted over $2.4billion after Schumacher's accident and claims surfaced that the camera mount may be responsible. Seems they have th biggest incentive to conduct the necessary research.
Since nobody knows for sure, but it is conceivable and, as stated by @randybadger, an easily eliminated liability risk, UCI did the prudent thing here. If this were a media issue the UCI would be cracking down on spectator cameras as well, don't ya think?
This is true timlake.
It reminds of an old benjamin franklin quote...
”People willing to trade their excitement for temporary safety deserve neither and will lose both.”
Okay okay... I changed a couple of the words.
I for one definitely do not understand the physics of how helmets work. More of a humanities guy. : )
In any event, you made some good points man.
@tobiusmaximum made me laugh!
^^^Hope that makes a bit of sense
Thinking out loud, I don't know if a mount would limit a helmets ability to dissipate force any more than a sharp rock strike directly a helmet, but it does seem reasonable that a blunt impacts, when you may just slam your head on flat ground or a tree, could lead to more serious injury if that impact is on a camera mount than the curved surface of the helmet.
road.cc/content/news/133135-did-michael-schumacher%E2%80%99s-helmet-cam-cause-brain-injury
They've also received no evidence that wearing blue gloves does not make you more likely to crash when turning to the left.
Just look @ motorsports, and some of the rules in place there, and you will see a trend that to me, is motivated more out of concerns of litigation than the health and well being of it's participants (yah, NHRA, I'm lookin at you!!)
And the fact that you can continue to use them, if you sign a waiver only reinforces that.......
facebook.com/video.php?v=10152804702741699&set=vb.186576276698&type=2&theater
youtube.com/watch?v=Eo_a9Z-Sw7M
There is increased risk of serious injury by wearing gopro a on helmets, I know this!
The same impact stress raiser principle follows if you strap one to your sternum, the boney body part that protects your vital organs inc heart.
The way the UCI operate an liability concerns are something else, but the safety principle is very valid.
P.S. Is it just me or do the jerseys look a little tighter this season?... Not cool!
The mount can also hook-up in the ground instead of letting the helmet slide, essentially causing a reverse effect of what Mips technology is trying to reduce. Massive rotational impacts to the brain.
not to mention the risk of spectating in general, including slipping off cliffs/rolling an ankle/slipping on roots/getting hypothermia/dengue fever/malaria/rockslides/mudslides/forestfires/bear attacks/bee stings/nuclear holocaust.
but gopros are the most dangerous thing on the mountain apparently.
give me a break.
Please spare us all the 'science' and 'physics'. There's no room for that here.
The helmet is effectively P.P.E. I understand why the uci would enforce rulings regarding tampering with its origional form.
You can bet they have been asking for evidence to demonstrate its safe to muont a camera but it sounds like they have had no evidence provided.
I guess I would say this about the pressure point. Say you took a massive slam and we're given the choice to either have your head slam into flat ground or directly on a pointy rock, what would you choose? You of course would not pick the slam directly on a pointy rock, because even with a helmet you would clearly know thatd bad news and more dangerous. Sure the helmet is designed to protect you but it's pretty clear that the rock would be an issue. With a go pro you are essentially riding around with the rock stuck to your head.
It's a stupid rule though. If someone wants to wear an action cam then let them.
Any sports that requires the athlete to wear a helmet (full face or not) is dangerous enough for head injuries it just makes sense not to alter it's function in any way.
there is a lot going on in a crash;
The impact will be on the camera and not the walls of the helmet
The mount and camera can react an cause a "lever" force on the head and neck
I'm surprised to see some of the comments, anyone who thinks that racers should be allowed to make their own choices don't understand how a federation works, how a governing body works, how a athletes race as license holders, how homologation and standards works and obviously, how insurance policies works.
i know that all this stuff is grown up boring stuff but any top level racing organisation needs it and it would be impossible to have them without it.
regards,
Also the UCI didn't ban cameras to prevent loss of revenue for other media suppliers. They just said no body mounted cameras. Retards. f*ck I just want to slap the lot of you. Why so stupid ? Seriously, why ?
SoPro Mounts Inc. terms and conditions make them not responsible for any personal injury obtained or equipment failure during the use or non-use of this device. SoPro Mounts Inc. accepts no responsibility for user-initiated damage and/or loss of parts incurred during operation or use of product.
SoPro Mounts Inc. is released from all liability relating to injuries that may occur during activity while utilizing a SoPro Mount. The user agrees to hold SoPro Mounts Inc. entirely free from any liability, including financial responsibility for injuries incurred, regardless of whether injuries are caused by negligence.
The client acknowledges the risks involved in all activities. These include but are not limited to snowmobiling, dirt biking, skiing, etc. The user is participating voluntarily, and all risks have been made clear to the user.
The user forfeits all right to bring a suit against SoPro Mounts Inc. for any reason.
Theoretically they sould be allowed right?
Nut up or shut up
because being a c3 quad on a ventilator is sooooo cool?