GoPro helmet mount - is this illegal? | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

GoPro helmet mount - is this illegal?

Looks to me that the intent of OREG 610 is to require helmets to conform to 'standards' and, thankfully, offers several (IMHO) suitable standards, even if some are not Canadian. I would expect helmet price to increase if mfrs had to meet CSA D230...


Highway Traffic Act
R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 610
SAFETY HELMETS


1. A helmet worn by a person,
(a) riding on or operating a motorcycle; or
(b) operating a motor assisted bicycle,
on a highway shall,
(c) have a hard, smooth outer shell lined with protective padding material or fitted with other energy absorbing material and shall be strongly attached to a strap designed to be fastened under the chin of the wearer; and
(d) be undamaged from use or misuse. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610, s. 1.
2. The helmet referred to in section 1 shall conform to the requirements of the,
(a) Canadian Standards Association Standard D230 Safety Helmets for Motorcycle Riders and shall bear the monogram of the Canadian Standards Association Testing Laboratories;
(b) Snell Memorial Foundation and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the Snell Memorial Foundation;
(c) British Standards Institute and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the British Standards Institute;
(d) United States of America Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 and shall bear the symbol DOT constituting the manufacturer’s certification of compliance with the standard; or
(e) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No. 22, “Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Protective Helmets and of Their Visors for Drivers and Passengers of Motor Cycles and Mopeds”, and shall have affixed thereto the required international approval mark. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610, s. 2; O. Reg. 102/12, s. 1.
 
A little off topic, but has there EVER been a motorcycle helmet that was CSA certified?
 
Another off-topic question. "motor assisted bicycle". Is there a definition for this? Can an e-bike be considered such and therefore the operators require a Snell / DOT / ECE helmet vs a bicycle helmet (as described in a later part of OREG 610).

Is this the 'loophole' to allow a 'crackdown' on e-bikes? Just like the pedal requirement.,,
 
Been stopped by the police 2 times last week randomly. They were just checking out the bike, and I have my GoPro attached to my chin on my helmet, they actually were talking about how it would turn out to be great shots etc, they never mentioned it was illegal.
 
FLSTC said:
Another off-topic question. "motor assisted bicycle". Is there a definition for this? Can an e-bike be considered such and therefore the operators require a Snell / DOT / ECE helmet vs a bicycle helmet (as described in a later part of OREG 610).

Is this the 'loophole' to allow a 'crackdown' on e-bikes? Just like the pedal requirement.,,
Click to expand...

Here is the definition under Reg 369/09:

Highway Traffic Act
ONTARIO REGULATION 369/09
POWER-ASSISTED BICYCLES
Consolidation Period: From October 3, 2009 to the e-Laws currency date.
No amendments.
This is the English version of a bilingual regulation.
[h=4]Maximum weight[/h] 1. The unladen weight of a power-assisted bicycle must not be more than 120 kilograms. O. Reg. 369/09, s. 1.
[h=4]Wheel width, diameter[/h] 2. (1) The wheels of a power-assisted bicycle must not be less than 35 millimetres wide. O. Reg. 369/09, s. 2 (1).
(2) The diameter of the wheels of a power-assisted bicycle must not be less than 350 millimetres. O. Reg. 369/09, s. 2 (2).
[h=4]Battery and motor[/h] 3. (1) The battery and motor of a power-assisted bicycle must be securely fastened to the bicycle to prevent them from moving while the bicycle is in motion. O. Reg. 369/09, s. 3 (1).
(2) The motor of a power-assisted bicycle must disengage if pedalling ceases, the accelerator is released or the brakes are applied. O. Reg. 369/09, s. 3 (2).
[h=4]Electric terminals[/h] 4. All electric terminals on a power-assisted bicycle must be completely insulated and covered. O. Reg. 369/09, s. 4.
[h=4]Brakes[/h] 5. The brakes of a power-assisted bicycle must be capable of bringing the bicycle, while being operated at a speed of 30 kilometres per hour on a clean, paved and level surface, to a full stop within nine metres from the point at which the brakes were applied. O. Reg. 369/09, s. 5.
[h=4]No modifications[/h] 6. A power-assisted bicycle must not be ridden on, driven or operated if it has been modified after its manufacture in any way that may result in increasing its power or its maximum speed beyond the limits set out in clause (d) of the definition of “power-assisted bicycle” in section 2 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations made under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada). O. Reg. 369/09, s. 6.
[h=4]Good working order[/h] 7. A power-assisted bicycle must not be ridden on, driven or operated unless it is in good working order. O. Reg. 369/09, s. 7.
8. Omitted (provides for coming into force of provisions of this Regulation). O. Reg. 369/09, s. 8.
 
Sonduren said:
Been stopped by the police 2 times last week randomly. They were just checking out the bike, and I have my GoPro attached to my chin on my helmet, they actually were talking about how it would turn out to be great shots etc, they never mentioned it was illegal.
Click to expand...

Always depends on the cop. Just cause it's illegal, doesn't mean they will bother tagging you on it.
 
Interesting facts... Guess this would mean communication devices (scala, etc) that affix to the exterior of a helmet would be considered illegal. But like most laws until successfully challenged in a court of law you can only go by what is written in that little blue book and the officer enforcing it.
 
LePhillou said:
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.
Click to expand...


Helmet footage sucks bigtime in my experience. You get only the footage where the rider is looking, and if you're a good rider, generally your head is moving. If out in the country, ok, less moving around to see BUT it does get get caught in the wind at *speed*.

Mounting on your bike doesnt have huge vibrations. I know, I've had mine on 3 different bikes and also try moving it around to get various angles and shots. I've had the camera off the read footpages, front bars facing backwards. This makes any footage more fun to watch. I have hours of footage from PA.
 
bww77 said:
Interesting facts... Guess this would mean communication devices (scala, etc) that affix to the exterior of a helmet would be considered illegal. But like most laws until successfully challenged in a court of law you can only go by what is written in that little blue book and the officer enforcing it.
Click to expand...

that is correct. Also note, in some states its ilegal to have headsets, and in some you cannot have two speakers/ear buds hooked up.

See this link to get more information on State by State rules:

http://americanmotorcyclist.com/Rights/State-Laws.aspx?stateid=32


also here:

http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/headsets/
 
kiwi said:
that is correct. Also note, in some states its ilegal to have headsets, and in some you cannot have two speakers/ear buds hooked up.

See this link to get more information on State by State rules:

http://americanmotorcyclist.com/Rights/State-Laws.aspx?stateid=32


also here:

http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/headsets/
Click to expand...

Hmm I wonder what rules exist for out of state (or country) motorcyclists. I have a Sena, and yes I could unclip it if I had to, but there is no way to disable one earpiece without cutting the cable which I'd never do. Then again, like I said before, unless you piss them off I doubt they'd spot check this alone.

Also find it odd that California also bans earplugs...I can see some of the logic, but you'd think there'd be exceptions given the studies on hearing damage (and they are making it illegal to protect yourself). EDIT -- Seems you can, so long as you can prove you can still hear a horn or siren (which I guess they could easily test with the cruiser).
 
Last edited:
conundrum said:
Hmm I wonder what rules exist for out of state (or country) motorcyclists. I have a Sena, and yes I could unclip it if I had to, but there is no way to disable one earpiece without cutting the cable which I'd never do. Then again, like I said before, unless you piss them off I doubt they'd spot check this alone.

Also find it odd that California also bans earplugs...I can see some of the logic, but you'd think there'd be exceptions given the studies on hearing damage (and they are making it illegal to protect yourself). EDIT -- Seems you can, so long as you can prove you can still hear a horn or siren (which I guess they could easily test with the cruiser).
Click to expand...


Just because you're out of town, dont think you're some how exempt do you??? Lol. You are supposed to obide by the local rules. There's a great blog post I read last year on 2 guys riding mopeds through Quebec and the hassle they had with the QC cops. Cant find the reference to that now, but here's a tidbit. Riding motorcycle in QC in winter is illegal for residents of QC without winter tires. See http://www.ott-motorcycles.ca/index.php?topic=43633.0
 
FLSTC said:
Looks to me that the intent of OREG 610 is to require helmets to conform to 'standards' and, thankfully, offers several (IMHO) suitable standards, even if some are not Canadian. I would expect helmet price to increase if mfrs had to meet CSA D230...


Highway Traffic Act
R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 610
SAFETY HELMETS


1. A helmet worn by a person,
(a) riding on or operating a motorcycle; or
(b) operating a motor assisted bicycle,
on a highway shall,
(c) have a hard, smooth outer shell lined with protective padding material or fitted with other energy absorbing material and shall be strongly attached to a strap designed to be fastened under the chin of the wearer; and
(d) be undamaged from use or misuse. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610, s. 1.
2. The helmet referred to in section 1 shall conform to the requirements of the,
(a) Canadian Standards Association Standard D230 Safety Helmets for Motorcycle Riders and shall bear the monogram of the Canadian Standards Association Testing Laboratories;
(b) Snell Memorial Foundation and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the Snell Memorial Foundation;
(c) British Standards Institute and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the British Standards Institute;
(d) United States of America Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 and shall bear the symbol DOT constituting the manufacturer’s certification of compliance with the standard; or
(e) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No. 22, “Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Protective Helmets and of Their Visors for Drivers and Passengers of Motor Cycles and Mopeds”, and shall have affixed thereto the required international approval mark. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610, s. 2; O. Reg. 102/12, s. 1.
Click to expand...
The way this reads it appears that helmets must conform to all of the standards listed not one of them? Is it possible to conform to Snell and the ECE standards?
 
The paragraph (d) has the 'or' at the end, so that makes this section 2 'one of the above'.
 
I missed that. Now it makes more sense.
 
Protrusions that are on the helmet as sold are immaterial, as the helmet passed certification with them in place. Additional equipment added after the fact? Not so much.
 
kiwi said:
Just because you're out of town, dont think you're some how exempt do you??? Lol. You are supposed to obide by the local rules. There's a great blog post I read last year on 2 guys riding mopeds through Quebec and the hassle they had with the QC cops. Cant find the reference to that now, but here's a tidbit. Riding motorcycle in QC in winter is illegal for residents of QC without winter tires. See http://www.ott-motorcycles.ca/index.php?topic=43633.0
Click to expand...

I'm saying within reason. Similar would be to if some state decided daytime running lights were illegal...they wouldn't expect out of state motorists to cut wires on their cars when entering. Or how front plates are required for our cars, however they don't immediately ticket anyone from Florida who comes here with rear-only.

Again I do get your point...but just saying I doubt many cops would pull over a bike with Ontario plates just to check to see if it adheres to all local state laws. Now if they pulled you over for doing 200km/h....then all bets are off. As a side note, I'm pretty sure my official/OEM Shoei RF-1100 dark tint visor isn't technically DOT legal as well...if they really wanted to get into it.
 
Last edited:
I have had my gopro mounted directly on the top of my helmet for the last 2 years, i have never been pulled over nor even asked about it by a cop. Cops are probably gonna pull me over for the noise of my aftermarket exhaust before getting a ticket from a helmet. If this is in fact a law, i think its incredibly dumb as a recording camera would be very good evidence in an accident you could possibly be in......

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk
 
rob.neal.564 said:
I have had my gopro mounted directly on the top of my helmet for the last 2 years, i have never been pulled over nor even asked about it by a cop. Cops are probably gonna pull me over for the noise of my aftermarket exhaust before getting a ticket from a helmet. If this is in fact a law, i think its incredibly dumb as a recording camera would be very good evidence in an accident you could possibly be in......

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

As far as I know it has been around long before cameras...and likely to stop the idiots with mohawks or the spike on top like german helmets...
 
These regulations have been around as stated long before people started using cameras. FYI a camera mounted on the bike will catch the collision, (in fact it may actually do so better). Say your approaching an intersection. A bike mounted camera will catch if you have the green light, if the rider is looking at a car approaching from the side the camera won't catch the traffic light, (which could be the best evidence as opposed to recording that a vehicle hit you from the side, that would become obvious from the crash and your unplanned get off)...lol At least with the bike mounted camera you can now show the insurance company you had the green light, while the other vehicle had a red. Witnesses don't always look at the light and the other driver can claim they are wrong, can't say a camera is fudging the truth..lol

rob.neal.564 said:
I have had my gopro mounted directly on the top of my helmet for the last 2 years, i have never been pulled over nor even asked about it by a cop. Cops are probably gonna pull me over for the noise of my aftermarket exhaust before getting a ticket from a helmet. If this is in fact a law, i think its incredibly dumb as a recording camera would be very good evidence in an accident you could possibly be in......

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
hedo2002 said:
These regulations have been around as stated long before people started using cameras. FYI a camera mounted on the bike will catch the collision, (in fact it may actually do so better). Say your approaching an intersection. A bike mounted camera will catch if you have the green light, if the rider is looking at a car approaching from the side the camera won't catch the traffic light, (which could be the best evidence as opposed to recording that a vehicle hit you from the side, that would become obvious from the crash and your unplanned get off)...lol At least with the bike mounted camera you can now show the insurance company you had the green light, while the other vehicle had a red. Witnesses don't always look at the light and the other driver can claim they are wrong, can't say a camera is fudging the truth..lol
Click to expand...
Well ifs a hit and run and front mounted camera wont catch his plate as it would woth you looking at it ;-)

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom