UCI Amends Rule on the Use of Onboard Cameras

Apr 11, 2015
by Fraktiv  
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.

Conditions under which UCI would enter into debate on the use of onboard cameras on helmets

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.

Posted In:
Industry News


Author Info:
fraktiv avatar

Member since May 14, 2008
227 articles
Report
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup

170 Comments
  • 267 25
 They're tackling the big issues. Lets ban onboard cameras but you only have to wear a full face helmet, it's not compulsory for gloves, neck brace or body armour, but's lets ban tiny little Go-pro's because they are a major concern for rider safety. When will the UCI fck off and let downhill run itself, the only thing they have ever got right in downhill is banning lycra. They can go back to road cycling and run the circus over there, don't bring it to our shores.
  • 51 23
 F*CK UCI!!! The governing body can burn in hell.
  • 52 15
 fuck the UCI and the FIA while were at it!
  • 26 11
 You should be allowed to wear whatever you like. Jeans and a wife beater, lycranor a gimp suit, what does it matter?
  • 57 4
 Smells like a shakedown to me. Bike mount video is unwatchable. The ban effectively kills gopro race run footage. Gopro- just pay the ransom please. Ty
  • 12 7
 Wwooohhh,!!!!! Fck u UCI! What Kind of People decide and confirm a rule like that. I Love the Sport but your rules and the desire to controll everything destroys everything. UCI just sucks...
  • 26 4
 I think it is related to the media rights. Whoever owns the media rights doesn't want to pay all that money and not control all the footage.
  • 37 5
 I doubt this has much to do with safety. my guess is that it's about revenue stream.
  • 4 4
 exacrly
  • 10 2
 freemason illuminati confirmed.
  • 21 2
 This probably has something to do with Michael Schumacher's crash and resultant injuries than anything else. It's believed that a GoPro or similar punched through his helmet on impact, causing more serious injuries than had he received without a cam.
  • 3 0
 Does this include practice rounds?
  • 45 2
 > You should be allowed to wear whatever you like

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.
  • 9 3
 lycras should be ilegal
  • 17 5
 So a wife beater and jeans are acceptable for Rampage, but not for DH?
  • 12 13
 if only the uci would ban those f*ng whistles
  • 8 2
 I don't see the "revenue stream" at all in that. They provide this liability exemption form which says "I know I'm not allowed to, but I am wearing a cam and it's at my risk. If I crash, and hurt myself on my camera, I will not sue you for allowing me to do so.". Sounds reasonable enough to me - the other possibility is to wait until someone gets seriously hurt, and THEN put the rule out into the world.
  • 5 2
 I'm just happy that when I ride, the self proclaimed "World Governing Body of Cycling", UCI can kiss my ### because they don't govern me, or 99% of the people I know that ride.
  • 11 7
 What happens in a crash when the durable gopro penetrates the helmet and does serious damage to someones skull?
Sticking an action cam to your helmet significantly increases the chances of a hard object penetrating the helmet. Fact.
  • 3 1
 @randybadger

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?
  • 9 0
 Sucks as a spectator, but it doesn't take a phd to see how an object on a helmet could, in rare instance, cause the design of the helmet to be compromised and lead to serious injury. And not just your head, anyone ever landed on their chesty mount without pads on at 65kph from 12ft in the air? I haven't, but I bet it would suck big time.

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.
  • 21 1
 Your head could hit a camera sized rock. Are they going to remove those too?
  • 2 1
 @Kainerm

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.
  • 4 1
 and then I reread the UCI document...seems fair enough. Put the camera someplace else and you're good.
  • 2 0
 You guys are thinking logically in a case of liability - the two don't align. Smile

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.
  • 2 0
 @jaame Damn it. Now I want to see somebody race the course in a gimp suit.
  • 3 1
 It like i posted somewhere else on this page. Many things on a dh course are natural hazzards and yes they could injure you but they are part of the surrounding and uncontrolable.
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.
  • 2 1
 The UCI are just covering their back incase of a Schumacher-esque incident.

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...
  • 2 1
 Under Peak Mounting? Pretty much completely out of harms way and the peak will provide some level of cover to ensure the camera doesn't receive a direct impact thus damaging the helmet.
  • 2 1
 Compared to all the things that could cause serious injury to a DH rider a helmet cam would be less than 0.1% so why should it be banned by UCI? Undoubtedly some of the concern is over the Schumacher incident - but that was one incident in a different sport.
  • 2 2
 That's coming from that entire Michael Schumacher thing and lets just be honest, Skiing and downhill mountain biking are two completely different sports for the most part. No matter what, if any of these guys crash on a course like Lourdes (for instance) they're going to get injured. A GoPro is going to make little to no difference to the rider if their head impacts the ground. Gopros are designed to be durable but the mounts break and bend and truly that's a good thing when these guys crash...
  • 5 0
 Do any of the people posting understand the basic physics of how helmets work? Any attachment to the helmet can compromise how it is designed to perform. The theory is that they focus the impact force instead of allowing it to be dissipated across the various layers of the helmet.

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?
  • 4 0
 'most rules are implemented for safety, and usually safety does not equal excitement...'
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.
  • 1 0
 @robwhynot

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!
  • 1 0
 I don't know for sure but I'm pretty sure a helmet is designed to dissipate energy over several layers. At least the high quality ones are. Because if you concentrate a force in one specific area then you actually increase the likeliness of head trauma. Like new cars are designed to essentially crumble and dissipate the energy over large areas so that you increase duration but you decrease intensity and therefore decrease the likeliness/severity of injury. MIPS is essentially designed to absorb shock over various layers so that the persons' head experiences a smaller load over a greater area...

^^^Hope that makes a bit of sense
  • 1 0
 Slightly off to one side but the Bell Super Helmets come with a GoPro Mount. But, as far as I can tell other than the mount there is no additional engineering to helmet to address GoPro impact injuries. Does this mean that Bell will be liable if someone landed on their head and the GoPro caused brain injury?
  • 1 0
 Chestmount!!
  • 3 0
 @stackingitsince1991 - I was wondering this about helmets with integrated mounts.


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.
  • 1 0
 @piranha google tomac skinsuit
  • 1 0
 I would think the chestmount should be fine and safe as long as the riders feel like the harness isn't restricting their movement too much (I've never worn one).
  • 1 0
 Thanks for mentioning that. The UCI definitely did this out of their concern for safety. Go Pros or anything stuck onto a helmet can create pressure points. So, instead of the helmet taking all of the blow as intended your head takes part or all of it depending on where it's hit.
  • 114 1
 Ridiculous, but my major concern is Claudio's course previews!
  • 8 1
 That is an excellent point.
  • 3 0
 First thing I thought of while reading this. Claudio provides the UCI/Redbull with very cheap and effective advertising. Using bike mounted cameras is going to kill the previews. They're really shooting themselves in the foot on this one... shocking... but not really.
  • 9 1
 To be fair Claudio isn't actually racing in a uci event. I don't think there will be a problem.
  • 80 4
 Such a roadie rule.
  • 39 1
 Lycra approved
  • 43 1
 Gooch lube certified.
  • 3 0
 What about helmet /bar lights , doesn't the uci sanction any sort of xc 24 hour racing ?
  • 75 5
 Instead of mounting the camera to your helmet (where it'll just break off in a crash), let's have you mount it to your handlebar. That way, if you get a little forward-heavy in some rocks or roots, you'll have a nice sternum-cracking apparatus built in to the bike.
  • 6 0
 OR they could just mount it to the headtube or something where it increases the danger by absolutely 0%.
  • 4 0
 I've knocked my GoPro off of my helmet twice due to a branch hitting the camera (but not me), and very, very little of the force was transferred to me, it seems the standard mounts break away very easily.
  • 13 0
 It's been my experience that footage from a camera mounted to the bike instead of on the person is almost unwatchable because its too shaky.
  • 2 0
 Its not about the camera getting snagged, its more of if the helmet takes an impact where that camera is mounted. There's no evidence showing that helmets are built to withstand such a precise hit and it could be a safety issue... with that said, careening down a rock-filled trail at 60 kph is a safety issue in itself. This is a silly regulation.
  • 28 0
 Read the fine print on your spectator ticket, UCI not responsible if you get hurt. This is all about money, they want all filming rights for major events, which equals money. UCI seems to be getting more out of control every year.
  • 15 0
 This is correct. This ruling is only about media rights. They dont want teams or riders making money of their skeezy race series.
  • 2 1
 That was my first thought but it if was really the main reason, they wouldn't have allowed the riders to put them on the bike (or chest?) and would have banned them, period.
  • 6 0
 They know that footage from a bike mounted cam sucks Wink
  • 1 0
 UCI's liability for spectators is different than their liability to riders paying membership fees to ride in races sanctioned by the UCI. I don't disagree that media rights is a factor here, but liability is probably the driving force.
  • 1 0
 If uci was concern about safety, they wouldn't let roadies wear only light helmet and lycra while descending Alp roads at 90km/h (during the tour de france for example)...
  • 30 2
 I'm assuming this is mostly in response to the Michael Schumacher inicident. Most likely the easiest solution to this is to design establish a universal mount system for different camera types and design the mount into the helmet, and then certify the helmet
  • 8 0
 i had to read up on this. it just sounds silly to me to actually make a rule about this with "safety" as the reasoning.
road.cc/content/news/133135-did-michael-schumacher%E2%80%99s-helmet-cam-cause-brain-injury
  • 4 0
 Thank for the link but dose anyone know where a scientific article is on this? Preferably from an unbiased source
  • 2 0
 yeah. exactly. i mean, i didnt do the deepest research but i read 2 articles and watched a "news" ish video on youtube. nobody is giving any real evidence. how they are claiming it IS the cameras fault but not actually stating HOW its the cameras fault is simply crazy to me. thats a pretty bold statement to make without actually stating the evidence behind it.
  • 1 1
 There probably is no science other than speculation....no one has sponsored a cadaveric study of helmets affected by go pros attached on traumatic brain injury...
  • 3 0
 Don't forget that Schumacher had a Ski helmet on...not exactly a DH level lid.
  • 29 2
 Why UCI!? I think a camera mounted to the top of your head is the least safety concern you could possibly have mountain biking. Are they going to ban rocks and trees next? Gopro mounts break easily
  • 14 0
 "To date, the UCI has received no evidence that the use of cameras on helmets does not affect its protective functions."

They've also received no evidence that wearing blue gloves does not make you more likely to crash when turning to the left.
  • 1 2
 Well wearing blue gloves won't make you more likely to crash when turning to the left.
  • 12 1
 While there may very well be some valid safety concerns related to the use of cameras, in the end, I believe the biggest concern here is sanctioning bodies COVERING THEIR ASSES so as to avoid litigation after the fact.
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.......
  • 10 0
 At the rate things are going, air horns, vuvuzelas, cowbells, and any other forms of noise maker will be prohibited as a distraction to riders. It will turn into the PGA with quite signs as riders pass by.
  • 4 0
 Ssshhhh!
  • 12 3
 This is a ruling that is currently in place in the world of FIS ski racing. There are many legitimate concerns surrounding the safety of strapping a foreign object to a piece of safety equipment that it was never designed or tested around. I personally saw this coming as a ski racer and I'm kinda surprised it didn't happen sooner. Designing a quick release/shearing element into the mounts may help but a direct impact is still a major factor. The ability for the helmet to glance, glide, deflect, and not have a raised protruding catch point is a critical design element. Visors on most helmets are actually a major issue too. Having visor bolts that are designed to sheer such as the 6D is very important. www.6dhelmets.com/#!shear-away-visor-screws/cag6
  • 2 0
 Very good info in your post. If you look at motorbike helmets for road use, they are designed to slide rather than stick, to prevent rapid deaccelleration from furthering brain trauma or spinal injury. Adding a foreign object cannot help in that circumstance
  • 11 1
 Yeah because action camera manufacturers really want terrible handlebar footage to help show how good their cameras are, wise up UCI and let the riders sign a disclaimer form so they can wear it on helmets.
  • 11 0
 This is great, I don't have so see footage of pros anymore, can we extend this to everyone better then me. It would do wonders for my ego.
  • 13 1
 Next step UCI's going to bannned Claudio track run???
  • 12 1
 wear it with a chest mount, problem solved.
  • 10 1
 That honestly looks better to me anyways with the helmet the camera is too high and makes everything look flatter
  • 1 0
 that's what I was thinking. I also wonder what the rules are on helmets with integrated mounts as they are surely designed to have a gopro attached
  • 2 0
 You didn't read the article. Chest mounts are banned as well. Only bar mount now.
  • 1 0
 lol bar mount, looks like no more gopro action from races. fuckin UCI
  • 6 1
 I fear for our sport reading the distinct lack of willingness to understand the issue. Instead just proclaiming it's corporate BS with out having a think for your self. You same people are the types that then try to sue land owners when u run out of talent. That's why we can't all just wear whatever because morons sue people and stuff gets shut down. So any risks have to be factored into someone's liability insurance and then your dealing with next level assholes insurance.
  • 7 0
 UCI is rubbish. Like FIFA, out grew their purpose. The tree of liberty must be refreshed...
  • 4 0
 from time to time with the blood of the patriots and tyrants..." so, who volunteers?
  • 1 0
 Lets hand all MTB racing to Chris Ball.
  • 4 0
 Well, Loic Bruni just tested the breakaway features of the GoPro mount in Lourdes :
facebook.com/video.php?v=10152804702741699&set=vb.186576276698&type=2&theater

youtube.com/watch?v=Eo_a9Z-Sw7M
  • 2 0
 I'm sorry but to go out and blatantly lie like the ama who had riders with large live transmitting cameras strapped to their helmets for live TV viewing have not taken up a similar stance! Get your heads out your arses go pros are moveable, mount snappable objects. boulders the floor,bikes are going to cause more injuries if the riders font want to wear them they don't have to! If this means we have to walk down the hill as it's too dangerous to ride I better go dust off my scooter!
  • 2 1
 We all love beautiful embedded images. It's part of adrenaline we have when we go down , mmm that's good. The UCI afraid of what happened with Schumi ski accident, we talked about the iimpact his camera on the helmet. But damn toues these camera brands also sponsor and show our sport to all.Sorry, my English is very bad.
  • 1 0
 Take a typical OTB situation: There is no doubt that even just a mount (after the gopro has sheared off) will prevent the helmet sliding on the gound as well as it would without. This will reduce the instinctive tuck an roll on contact (head first) and significantly increase the likely hood of the impact forces being transmitted to the skull, neck & spine. Also having a lump on the helmet causes localised increase in impact stress, perhaps beyond the design intent. This is like hitting your head with a hammer rather than spreading the ompact over the entire area of the helmet.
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.
  • 1 0
 I had a crash at with a chest mount on, the camera detached from the mount after a heavy frontal impact with the ground, all i received was a small graze on my chest. They risk more by not wearing a neck brace and full body armour.

P.S. Is it just me or do the jerseys look a little tighter this season?... Not cool!
  • 9 4
 In what world could mounting a camera on your helmet not be safe?
  • 28 10
 Ask Schumacher
  • 5 1
 bingo.
  • 13 2
 if you hit your head in a crash and your camera was in between the ground and your helmet it/the mount can break your helmet in a way it's not designed for and can cause some pretty bad head injuries.
  • 8 3
 plus its also for fan's safety. imagine gettin clocked in the dome with a hero 4 after some dude ragdolls thru a crash. safety first.
  • 5 0
 woopsie poopsie, i didn't know that, thanks for letting me know.
  • 35 1
 Even if the camera breaks off, the remaining part of the mount acts as a pressure point on the helmet and can pierce/crack the shell or compress the eps liner excessively in one spot, concentrating impact pressure on one part of the head rather than dissipating the force like a helmet is supposed to.

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.
  • 7 1
 Would it make a difference if they mounted it under the visor???
  • 10 0
 ctd07 knows what time it is.
  • 5 5
 Surely if you land on a sharp rock it's more likely to damage you than landing on a GoPro. This rule is pointless
  • 12 1
 i know its hard to imagine, but the way things perform under impact testing is quite surprising... i am involved in testing at my work and i can see some small changes like adding something rigid between the helmet and the striker could change the result in a major way... so, a reasonable move in my opinion until more is known... i dont need race run helmetcam footage more than i need the riders to not end up vegetables, or leave their sons fatherless like schumacher almost did... you can bet gopro is testing right now... its possible that there is a whole new world of liability that is about to open up on them, and the UCI rightly doesnt want that liability on the sport and the largely grass-roots people who put in the hours and the passion supporting it...
  • 12 16
flag jaycubzz (Apr 11, 2015 at 16:34) (Below Threshold)
 @stacykohut yeah cause yknow, gopros are the most dangerous thing during a crash, wayyyy more than an actual 35lb bike flying through the air with handlebars/chains/cogs/spiky pedals/crankarms, nevermind the rider himself.

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.
  • 8 1
 nuclear holocausts are clearly a thing to watch for when spectating! i totally agree
  • 6 9
 @ctd07
Please spare us all the 'science' and 'physics'. There's no room for that here.
  • 6 1
 The likelihood of a GoatPro related injury is minuscule in relation to the multitude of risks resulting from riding downhill at this level. You don't need a study to tell you that. Just look at injury history. How many of you have been injured with a camera? It's hypocrisy, this rule, because there are a multitude of rules or changes they could institute that would make a real, tangible change in rider safety. This will not. It's dishonest to cite safety, when liability could be released with a waiver. This is not about safety.
  • 2 2
 Hillatoppa said it. His ski crash (at relatively low speeds) rumored to cause trauma.
  • 6 0
 Sorry @sino428, forgot where I was for a second - you're also not supposed to put decals on your helmet for the reason that the glue may react with the plastic shell and make it brittle/soft... But the idea of nuclear holocausts occuring and lethal go-pro-jectiles punching holes in spectators faces is a much more real concern... On that note, spectators should be allowed to have chains on their chainsaws in the crowd!
  • 4 0
 Anyone got up to date facts about this Shumacher thing? All I can find is rumors and speculations, something about ongoing tests (oct 2014) and no conclusive answer. You'd think by now they would have found if the camera really had any influence. I don't get the pressure point reasoning, we're talking about helmets that should withstand pointy rocks impacts. Could be something about the glue in the adhesive mount... but again you'd think they'd have conclusive tests about it by now, given the size of gopro's business.
  • 3 0
 The thing about the minimal risk of a gopro related injury is that it is 100% controlable, the camera is none essential, once removed the risk is gone.
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.
  • 3 0
 It just amazes me that you can base a whole successful business on helmet mountable devices and not have any evidence that they don't tamper with helmet original function.
  • 1 1
 I don't think GoPro is testing...I don't think they care enough to test...and it's one thing to test if it effects the structural integrity of a helmet and quite another to test if it causes more TBI in athletes...
  • 2 1
 @justgivemeanavailableusername
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.
  • 3 0
 Schumacher's injuries being accentuated by his camera are nothing but couch speculation. We do know that his head hit a rock though and you can bet that had far more consequence than his pov.
  • 1 0
 It's just as easy to speculate that mounts don't cause a problem. Until you test it, you can't know. According to reports, there is testing taking place by the Schumacher people, the results of which we may never know. if the idea is out there that the mounts could be a liability, you can bet your ass go pro is looking at it. .. especially with how their stock price took a hit after the speculation that the camera played a role in the injuries... you think they aren't doing what they can to close the door to liability suits, or worse yet, class action? Any company producing mounts should follow this from a liability standpoint. .. and companies financed by savvy VC companies producing wearable cameras will be worried about the potential liability.
  • 4 2
 I don't like GoPro helmet cams anyway. Little boxes ontop of everyone's head. They've always looked silly to me and I've always thought that putting a camera on a helmet is a bad idea when it comes to safety.
  • 1 0
 My opinion too.
  • 2 0
 you obviously have never used a gopro.
  • 1 0
 I still have the first GoPro, and I've owned (and used...) a Hero 3 for a season with the chest mount, then a contour on the side of my helmet. I wasn't happy with either camera and I haven't used a pov while riding for a few seasons now.
  • 2 1
 I kind of get this rule for on top of your helmet but what if riders wore it underneath their visors like a lot of riders do at rampage. How would that affect you if you crashed?

It's a stupid rule though. If someone wants to wear an action cam then let them.
  • 1 0
 Isn't the helmet can getting the blame for Michael Schumacher's horrible injuries so I guess you can see why they are concerned . But if they really are worried about riders safety then they'll have to look are neck braces and armour being mandatory too .
  • 1 0
 I dont like it but is not so stupid. I almost break my neck after a crash with a tree branch with a gopro (upper helmet mount), of course was my fault not look the very low branch but without the camera i wouldn't hit the tree. Cameras should be embedded on the helmet, would look better and no worries about safety.
  • 2 1
 At the risk of going against the crowd, personally i think this is a great decision. It is based on observation done on injuries suffered by victims wearing head mounted cameras, crash impact analysis and basic application of physics.
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,
  • 3 0
 I understand the deal with cameras causing head injuries, however what's the problem with chest mounts then?
  • 2 0
 Same thing, only your chest, not your head.
  • 3 1
 moto helmet tests test for slide resistance if high will twist neck on impact, obvious outcome. at speed gopro hits ground maybe breaks mount, damage to neck complete
  • 2 0
 Haha, gopros mounted on bikes. Thats me when I first got a gopro about 4 years ago. Tried it on the handle bar, after a couple of jumps, I was like NOPE...
  • 2 0
 If all the pros wear chest mounts in the future (which look better in my opinion) we’ll soon know if it’s really about the money or safety concerns.
  • 2 0
 From what I've understood they are not allowed to do that either. Really don't see how you could get injured by a tiny camera some guy in the UCI probably broke his go pro and now he is grumpy that he has to buy a new one
  • 2 1
 Heres an experiment. Get someone to stand on your hand with all their weight. Providing they are careful nothing should break, your hand will just get a bit squashed. Now put a go pro on your hand preferably at a funny angle so the corner sticks in a bit. Then get your same friend to stand on that and lets see what happens to your hand. Therer is your answer
  • 2 0
 Helmet cams don't look cool and if you've seen one bit of footage, you've seen em all... Although Blenkinsop did look super quick in the last footage I watched. haha
  • 1 0
 If you go down hard in a rock garden, a little plastic camera held on with a 'sticky' pad is gonna' be the least of your problems. There are bigger safety concerns in all extreme sports,
  • 1 1
 Wow. A well written article followed up with evidence that the general mountain bike population are all stupid & can't read. Good to know that if the roman games returned the mob is ready & waiting with their thumbs.
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 ?
  • 2 0
 I just use Heavy Duty Velcro to attach my Cam. There mounts are to expensive anyways
  • 2 0
 How about make everyone wear a leatt style neck brace...probably gonna do more for safety than banning a helmet cam
  • 1 0
 I wonder if the UCI would test our mount www.sopromounts.com Off the top of the head and does not compromise helmets structural integrity
  • 1 0
 Looks good, like the footage and I would defo rather take one in the mouth than in the brain. I think they may need to make a go pro housing specifically for body mounting - smaller, possibly padded and that big old screw can't help much
  • 1 0
 The mounts are so good they require this injury disclaimer
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.
  • 1 0
 that wouldn't compromise SoPro's liability at all with that Injury Disclaimer lol...
  • 2 0
 And whats about those cameras in the goggels?
Theoretically they sould be allowed right?
  • 1 0
 With regard to action cameras in road racing, those videos are, in fact, much more fascinating than what one would expect. www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE97iUvSHk0
  • 2 0
 Road riding looks much more hardcore when viewed at that angle
  • 3 0
 Rodger Goodell definately helped out with this one
  • 3 0
 Integrated helmet cameras come soon
  • 3 0
 Hopefully they don't make claudio follow this rule
  • 1 2
 This makes total sense to me. I for one am sick of the numbers of cameras that everyone seems to think are somehow essential. They look stupid, they are completely egotistical and until we have evidence to the contrary, dangerous too. A certain F1 stars injuries were seriously increased by him wearing a go-pro. Ok so he wasn't wearing a full face helmet, but this needs addressing in all disciplines of cycling and every other sport where the use of helmet cams has become popular. Also, when bike and helmet manufacturers work hard to reduce weight and increase strength, why then go and add something to make these benefits redundant?
  • 1 0
 they do look rediculous. sofa king stupid looking.
  • 2 0
 Dear UCI, Regarding that massive check we just sent, dont bother cashing it. Signed, GoPro.
  • 1 1
 Helmet cams look goofier than skinsuits... Looking goofy is definitely not in the spirit of the sport. I'm glad they're gone. The footage is worthless as entertainment anyway, except for Claudio's...
  • 1 0
 wouldnt want to see someone crashed and plant a GoPro right on his forehead
  • 1 0
 I think the UCI should impliment this rule:
Nut up or shut up
  • 1 0
 Make a mount that breaks easy on impact
  • 1 0
 Being heavily involved with helmets do you guys have a view on safety of go pros on helmets?
  • 3 4
 Okay, but like, why?
  • 1 4
 It's because of Loic's crash i think, the bike hit the camera on his helmet quite hard...
  • 4 0
 Then the camera flew off down the track. It made no difference to if he was injured or not. Better than receiving a camera to the chest/stomach when you hit the bars - the blow from the bars is gnarly enough, don't even want to know what damage an extra pointy object stuck on them would do!
  • 7 10
 Stupidest. Rule. Ever.
  • 4 5
 stupid?
because being a c3 quad on a ventilator is sooooo cool?
  • 4 1
 like i mean i see how it could happen, I also see a bizarre scenario where baggy shorts cause a rider to get bad injuries there are lots of things in our sport that can cause injuries and i feel that because helmet cams are more recent tech people put it under the microscope more than it needs to be, we all know the risks and i feel that we should be allowed to make our own choices.
  • 1 0
 I had a freak baggy short incident. Got them caught on my shifter while pedaling my dh bike. It whipped my bars round and had me straight off, in front of a bunch of old ladies who all gathered round to ask if I was alright .
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.052325
Mobile Version of Website