GoPro helmet mount - is this illegal?

[torontoZX6R]

So I just mounted my GoPro session to my helmet and have been hearing conflicting things, so let's clear the air....is having a helmet mounted camera against the HTA or not?

 

[LePhillou]

A cop can stop you for it if theyre having a bad day.

Especially if its on top and its obstructing the shield from lifting fully.

In terms of HTA.. i don't exactly know.

 

[FLSTC]

Summary:
HTA 140 requires helmet use, one that complies with regs
OREG 610 states helmet standards, ie DOT/FMVSS-28, Snell, ECE, and must have a hard smooth outer surface.
FMVSS-218 states no protrusion > 5mm (IIRC)
Ontario case law where stick-on mohawks and cameras mean that the helmet does not meet standards (O.REG, and FMVSS) therefore rider guilty of HTA helmet offence

There's a long thread here about this.

You ride a supersport? Even if you are not squidding, I'd expect you to be an easy target to fulfil a police officer's ticket quota, whoops, 'performance target'.

 

[hedo2002]

Simple short answer, There are at least two cases which have resulted in convictions of riders having helmet cameras. So yes it is illegal. Will you get stopped? No idea depends on the cop, the circumstances, rider attitude, many other variables. Also at the cops discretion is weather they are "nice" let you remove camera and continue to ride home, or decide it is egregious enough that you find your own way home while the bike is towed. On a slow day you have painted a target on yourself, why bring on the increased scrutiny?

When I replaced my helmet, I also mounted the camera on the bike. Actually now have two cameras front and rear views.

Also negates, the annoying issue of constant head movements on videos.

I will be replacing my Ram mount this season as I have noticed considerable camera rattle due to the rubber becoming hard and brittle, (been using them for 4 years now).

 

[LePhillou]

Simple short answer, There are at least two cases which have resulted in convictions of riders having helmet cameras. So yes it is illegal. Will you get stopped? No idea depends on the cop, the circumstances, rider attitude, many other variables. Also at the cops discretion is weather they are "nice" let you remove camera and continue to ride home, or decide it is egregious enough that you find your own way home while the bike is towed. On a slow day you have painted a target on yourself, why bring on the increased scrutiny?

When I replaced my helmet, I also mounted the camera on the bike. Actually now have two cameras front and rear views.

Also negates, the annoying issue of constant head movements on videos.

I will be replacing my Ram mount this season as I have noticed considerable camera rattle due to the rubber becoming hard and brittle, (been using them for 4 years now).

That's the thing though, on bike camera = more vibrations and one point of view
If there's something you want to record specifically, by having it on helmet, you just turn towards it and voila.

Probably the best way to not get caught by cops is by having one of those slim profile cameras, even the cheap mobius ones are especially small and less noticeable.

Wonder if they could do the same thing with a Sena.

 

[hedo2002]

I think, and this is only my point of view is the communicators are generally "clipped onto" and not physically attached to the shell of the helmet. The case law seemed to focus on the fact that the cameras use some form of adhesive to secure them to the shell. This is what negated the helmet certification.

To be clear when my mounts were new, the rubber on them eliminated all vibrations for the camera. The rubber, (partly my fault as I leave them attached even during the cold winter) has become dried out. I have seen some youtube videos with helmet mounted cameras that shake terribly and the constant looking around means the camera is more than often focused on anything BUT the road ahead...lol

I KNOW if I have a collision the camera is angled properly to capture the collision. That is the primary reason I have the cameras. Plus given I ride a cruiser I am not riding at high speeds, but the camera will NEVER record my speedometer from the handlebars either..lol Even the smallest camera is subject to the charge as the maximum protrusion can only be 5MM. Having said all that if someone wants to mount a camera on their helmet, and asks I make them aware, of the law. I do wear my GoPro attached to my helmet when I am on my ATV, (different set of rules, Off Road Vehicle Act as opposed to the HTA), so I can record the ride, not in the event of a collision.

That's the thing though, on bike camera = more vibrations and one point of view
If there's something you want to record specifically, by having it on helmet, you just turn towards it and voila.

Probably the best way to not get caught by cops is by having one of those slim profile cameras, even the cheap mobius ones are especially small and less noticeable.

Wonder if they could do the same thing with a Sena.

 

[LePhillou]

Thanks for your info/insight

 

[PLau]

Had mine on the last 3 helmets I own/ed, nothing but compliments from cops thus far in the past 4 years. Probably at least 10 encounters.

Most encounters consisted of "Is that a camera? Cool", others didn't notice, care, or know it was technically against the law.

FWIW, Bluetooth com device on the left side, helmet mounted camera on the right. Cop would see those devices whichever way they look at me.

As long as they're not pulling you over for riding like an idiot/street stunting/acting like an ***, I doubt they'd care. That being said, I've never been pulled over on the street. Other than the two times cops were doing something else and they waved me over to ask me about the camera.

As for the "You need a smooth shell for your helmet to slide or it'll get caught on something and break your neck" argument.. Well.. I went down, and the first thing that snapped off was the camera...

 

[conundrum]

Had mine on the last 3 helmets I own/ed, nothing but compliments from cops thus far in the past 4 years. Probably at least 10 encounters.

Most encounters consisted of "Is that a camera? Cool", others didn't notice, care, or know it was technically against the law.

FWIW, Bluetooth com device on the left side, helmet mounted camera on the right. Cop would see those devices whichever way they look at me.

As long as they're not pulling you over for riding like an idiot/street stunting/acting like an ***, I doubt they'd care. That being said, I've never been pulled over on the street. Other than the two times cops were doing something else and they waved me over to ask me about the camera.

As for the "You need a smooth shell for your helmet to slide or it'll get caught on something and break your neck" argument.. Well.. I went down, and the first thing that snapped off was the camera...

Similar setup -- Sena SMH10 on the left and Drift Ghost on the right. Never had any issues, but then I really don't do things that would cause a cop to pull me over.

Personally I liken this one to the 'extra ticket' category...where if you piss off an officer when they have already pulled you over for speeding or similar, and they are looking for other ways to nail you. If you do get pulled over, be polite, and I doubt they'll care. Even if you think the ticket is unjust, just be polite then fight it later on.

 

[hedo2002]

Exactly, the same experience I had. OPP in stop and go traffic on 401 pulled up beside me, (Had my big GoPro at the time mounted on top of helmet), rolled his window down, asked if it was a camera. I said it was he gave thumbs up and I moved on, a few seconds later he pulled onto bull nose beside me, said is it recording now? I said yep. He asked why. I said so when you respond to the collision and my broken and mangled body is splattered all over the highway you will now WHY, and How I came to be there and WHO did it to me... He laughed, another thumbs up, and we carried on.

I doubt even 10% of the coppers even know of these cases, and the regulation. I too suspect this is more a ticket of "douchery" You act like one when stopped this is your bonus prize. When I heard of the guys getting written up near Bobcaygeon, that was the impression I got. They gave cop hard time they got tagged and lost in court.

I too doubt anyone has suffered a broken neck from having a camera attached, even if you crazy glue the mount to the helmet, (as I have with the ATV helmet due to vibrations etc), the camera mounts and case are plastic, they are likely to give way first.

Had mine on the last 3 helmets I own/ed, nothing but compliments from cops thus far in the past 4 years. Probably at least 10 encounters.

Most encounters consisted of "Is that a camera? Cool", others didn't notice, care, or know it was technically against the law.

FWIW, Bluetooth com device on the left side, helmet mounted camera on the right. Cop would see those devices whichever way they look at me.

As long as they're not pulling you over for riding like an idiot/street stunting/acting like an ***, I doubt they'd care. That being said, I've never been pulled over on the street. Other than the two times cops were doing something else and they waved me over to ask me about the camera.

As for the "You need a smooth shell for your helmet to slide or it'll get caught on something and break your neck" argument.. Well.. I went down, and the first thing that snapped off was the camera...

 

[thirstforspeed]

I rock a Replay XD 1080 Mini, and I've been riding for 5 years now. Never once had an issue from the po-po for it. I ride in the city, and I don't squid, so thats probably the main reason why I haven't been pulled over. I agree with conundrum though, I think this would be firmly an 'extra ticket' thing when the cop is not having the best day or the rider had a bad case of sass-mouth.

My Replay is very small, and doesn't require a case to be waterproof for the type of use it sees when I ride. It is very unobtrusive. I've had a few cops (TPS) comment in passing that having one is a really good idea in the city. Keeps the taxis honest at least.

Replay XD review i did.

 

[Blackfin]

Summary:
HTA 140 requires helmet use, one that complies with regs
OREG 610 states helmet standards, ie DOT/FMVSS-28, Snell, ECE, and must have a hard smooth outer surface.
FMVSS-218 states no protrusion > 5mm (IIRC)
Ontario case law where stick-on mohawks and cameras mean that the helmet does not meet standards (O.REG, and FMVSS) therefore rider guilty of HTA helmet offence

It's interesting that FMVSS (a US federal government regulation, 49 CFR Sec. 571.21...) is referenced in Canadian case law. Isn't FMVSS US federal "regulations specifying design, construction, performance, and durability requirements" (link) that applies to the original equipment manufacturer and not to the end user?

R.R.O 610 seems only to reference that a helmet "have a hard, smooth outer shell..." but that seems pretty nebulous given the vent and visor structures that interrupt the "smooth outer shell" of virtually all helmets nowadays.

This interpretation -- based on using federal requirements aimed at manufacturers against individuals -- suggests to me that anyone that adds anything to, say, a car such as a windshield-mounted GPS or vent-mounted phone holder and so on is likely breaking some obscure regulation regarding the design of car interiors. There's likely some verbiage in these regulations regarding dashboard and windshield surfaces and their required smoothness, lack of pokey-outey thingamabobs that could put an eye out in an accident and so on. But this is never, ever policed. Indeed, if a cop stops you on the 401 because you have a radar detector mounted under your mirror he doesn't even think to charge you with a violation of the FMVSS, he's all about the detector itself.

Does anyone have any actual links to precedents in Ontario (e.g. Ontario v. XXX ...) of someone being convicted of a violation of the HTA with respect to having a camera mounted on the helmet? Would love to read the actual decision.

 

[LePhillou]

We got pulled over by a cop on a ride in caledon sideroads, she also happened to ride, she warned us about them in them being obstructive if placed too far forward (so your shield wont go fully up) but she didn't say anything to my buddy with his gopro hanging from the side of his helmet.

So she didn't ticket for it... but she didn't mention anything about it being a safety concern.

 

[hedo2002]

If you read the section of the HTA, (it is actually 104(1)), it states the helmet "complies with the regulations"

Motorcycle and bicycle helmets

Motorcyclists to wear helmet

104. (1) No person shall ride or operate a motorcycle or motor assisted bicycle on a highway unless the person is wearing a helmet that complies with the regulations and the chin strap of the helmet is securely fastened under the chin. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 104 (1); 2015, c. 14, s. 36 (1).

As for FMVSS-218. I got the this from the NHTSA, (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration). Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, (FMVSS) Part 571 Section 571.218 Subsection 5.5

S5.5 Projections. A helmet shall not have any rigid projections
inside its shell. Rigid projections outside any helmet's shell
shall be limited to those required for operation of
essential accessories, and shall not protrude more than 0.20 inch (5
mm).



Therefore, a vent installed by the manufacturer would be less than 5 mm and would be considered an "essential accessory" The visor is also a "essential accessory." A camera would fit into neither of these categories.

As for case law the links are provided in one of the other threads dealing with camera mounting in this subforum

Interestingly, I came across a link to Hawaii's Dept of Transportation pointing out how to "spot" an illegal helmet and it refers to "anything attached to the shell of a helmet that protrudes more than .20" such as Mohawks, would indicate an illegal helmet"

As for Oreg 660. I would say the same applies the vents and visor are manufacturer installed, and for the visor it would be considered essential. just as the visors that "protrude" are limited to off road helmets. You don't see those type of visors installed on "street use helmets"

It's interesting that FMVSS (a US federal government regulation, 49 CFR Sec. 571.21...) is referenced in Canadian case law. Isn't FMVSS US federal "regulations specifying design, construction, performance, and durability requirements" (link) that applies to the original equipment manufacturer and not to the end user?

R.R.O 610 seems only to reference that a helmet "have a hard, smooth outer shell..." but that seems pretty nebulous given the vent and visor structures that interrupt the "smooth outer shell" of virtually all helmets nowadays.

This interpretation -- based on using federal requirements aimed at manufacturers against individuals -- suggests to me that anyone that adds anything to, say, a car such as a windshield-mounted GPS or vent-mounted phone holder and so on is likely breaking some obscure regulation regarding the design of car interiors. There's likely some verbiage in these regulations regarding dashboard and windshield surfaces and their required smoothness, lack of pokey-outey thingamabobs that could put an eye out in an accident and so on. But this is never, ever policed. Indeed, if a cop stops you on the 401 because you have a radar detector mounted under your mirror he doesn't even think to charge you with a violation of the FMVSS, he's all about the detector itself.

Does anyone have any actual links to precedents in Ontario (e.g. Ontario v. XXX ...) of someone being convicted of a violation of the HTA with respect to having a camera mounted on the helmet? Would love to read the actual decision.

 

[Blackfin]

I wonder if police that do act on cameras are doing so because the presence of a camera "automatically" implies that the rider is up to no good, recording idiotic behavior, speeding and stunting etc for later posting on Youtube. Maybe they think that a camera encourages "recordable moments" and are trying to quash that.

 

[LePhillou]

I wonder if police that do act on cameras are doing so because the presence of a camera "automatically" implies that the rider is up to no good, recording idiotic behavior, speeding and stunting etc for later posting on Youtube. Maybe they think that a camera encourages "recordable moments" and are trying to quash that.

That would be very shortsighted of them since they have dashcams now no?

Dashcams are becoming a lot more popular due to liability during accidents and scammers

 

[Blackfin]

If you read the section of the HTA, (it is actually 104(1)), it states the helmet "complies with the regulations"

Which regulation though? Please don't reference NHTSA or FMVSS unless you can show that Canada/Ontario has adopted, verbatim, American laws and regulations as part of the judicial process here. It's quite possible they have; some of our EMC and EMI standards for Industry Canada mirror those of the FCC in the US but we still have our own regulations and verbiage.

There actually is a "CMVSS" (aka as the CMVSR), certain sections of which deal with motorcycles specifically (e.g. 122, 123, 301.3...), some of which are shared (106, 108, 111...) but I can't find an FMVSS-218 counterpart in our CMVSS. Interestingly, I can't even find a section numbered 218 in the CMVSS.

Therefore, a vent installed by the manufacturer would be less than 5 mm and would be considered an "essential accessory" A camera would fit into neither of these categories.

This AFX FX-39 DS helmet is DOT approved and certainly has features that violate the 5mm "rule":

The Icon Variant Battlescar:

Also appears to violate the 5mm rule yet is DOT approved.

Clearly there's more at play here that a hard and fast 5mm rule. If this were the case we'd all be riding with these on:

Might have to ditch those snaps though; they look awfully close to 5mm...

 

[hedo2002]

Blackfin.... Do you think I wrote the HTA and other regulations?? I am just providing the most up to date info. If you want more info as to what the convictions in Ontario were based upon feel free to do the research rather than expect me to do it for you. Might suggest you search the other thread I believe someone posted up at least one of the JP's decisions and presumably the regulations will be listed there.

The courts in Ontario have established via TWO different case law, convictions that having anything, (other than manufacturer installed, both of the above noted visors, "appear" as though they were manufacturer installed), protruding from a helmet, renders the helmets certification no longer valid. Again the snaps were manufacturer installed not sure why your having such difficulty in understand that concept. This is not something I dreamed up, nor did I write the regulations, nor did I write the tickets, nor did I register the convictions.

Perhaps you can spend the time to write the MTO, (it was them that drafted the regulations), then the Legislature, (it was the law makers who passed the regulations), the OPP, (it was if memory serves me correctly City of Kawartha Lakes Bobcaygeon detachment, that issued the one ticket), then the write the Ministry of the AG, to ask why the crown proceeded, and why the JP convicted. Then you can advise us all.

Or to save time, you can mount a camera, go find an officer and then request to be ticketed and you can argue the point in the courts and have the crown show you the regulations upon which they relied to get a conviction, in the case law cases.

 

[Blackfin]

That would be very shortsighted of them since they have dashcams now no?

Dashcams are becoming a lot more popular due to liability during accidents and scammers

Agreed. A helmet camera would give motorcyclists the opportunity to capture more of their surroundings than a fixed camera only looking forward and/or backward. Looking to the side to see a vehicle impinging into your lane would be much more valuable than

When dealing with the aftermath of an accident or other incident, it would be nice to have all the evidence possible.

Blackfin.... Do you think I wrote the HTA and other regulations?

Clearly this is not the case since, for reasons known only to you, you kept referencing the United States code of Federal regulations (49 CFR 517) and a United States Federal government agency (NHTSA) when making your argument justifying why attachments to a helmet here in Ontario, Canada, are illegal.

I'll stipulate to the existence of case law precedent where one or two punitive, nanny-state interpretations of the word "smooth" results in a foam Mohawk being ruled illegal though, for the sake of discussion, I'll continue to believe this to be an unjust application of the law. If you're still "not sure why" I maintain this position, tough ****.

 

[hedo2002]

Actually, You will see I also referenced Ontario Reg 610, Which is NOT a US derived regulation. One of the cases involved a helmet camera the other may have dealt with a mohawk. As I have stated, I used to have my camera helmet mounted it is now bike mounted, (oh BTW it didn't need to be on my helmet to provide more than enough evidence to the insurer to reverse their position that I was 50% at fault for a collision, so your argument that only a helmet mounted camera can be used effectively is a false one).

I used the US regulations and where they are to be found only to demonstrate where the regs that Ontario courts have applied likely were derived from, As even you admitted many of our regulations on many things not just highway safety and relevant legislation mirror those in the US.

You can maintain whatever position your would like, I am merely advising other riders of the potential issue of mounting your camera on your helmet. I directly responded to the OP's question, "Is it legal" the short answer is NO despite your position, or belief, case law is case law. So unless you can point to something that proves it is is legal in Ontario, then I will maintain my position, and advise the OP of the facts not what I "believe."

Agreed. A helmet camera would give motorcyclists the opportunity to capture more of their surroundings than a fixed camera only looking forward and/or backward. Looking to the side to see a vehicle impinging into your lane would be much more valuable than

When dealing with the aftermath of an accident or other incident, it would be nice to have all the evidence possible.



[/COLOR]Clearly this is not the case since, for reasons known only to you, you kept referencing the United States code of Federal regulations (49 CFR 517) and a United States Federal government agency (NHTSA) when making your argument justifying why attachments to a helmet here in Ontario, Canada, are illegal.

I'll stipulate to the existence of case law precedent where one or two punitive, nanny-state interpretations of the word "smooth" results in a foam Mohawk being ruled illegal though, for the sake of discussion, I'll continue to believe this to be an unjust application of the law. If you're still "not sure why" I maintain this position, tough ****.