GoPro helmet mount - is this illegal?

[rust0r]

Hedo2002:

I've read the thread previous and don't recall this being answered.

If someone was pulled over for an infraction, issued a ticket (say even towed and suspended under HTA 172), would the officer have the right/ability to seize their GoPro/camera footage as their own evidence come court day?

Ignoring there is a crash, someone has died, etc. Just a standard traffic incident.

 

[nobbie48]

Hedo2002:

I've read the thread previous and don't recall this being answered.

If someone was pulled over for an infraction, issued a ticket (say even towed and suspended under HTA 172), would the officer have the right/ability to seize their GoPro/camera footage as their own evidence come court day?

Ignoring there is a crash, someone has died, etc. Just a standard traffic incident.

I may be wrong but was under the impression evidence could be seized to prevent it from being destroyed but a court order is needed to have it revealed.

 

[hedo2002]

I may be wrong but was under the impression evidence could be seized to prevent it from being destroyed but a court order is needed to have it revealed.

You are 100% correct. if the evidence could easily be destroyed, IE erased, then the officer can sieze the camera, but they would then apply for a court order to view the recording

 

[hedo2002]

If you tighten down the camera mount sufficiently, (which also prevents someone from removing it easily by hand, the vibration is considerably reduced. Of course if your constantly redlining the camera will vibrate. I also used a rubber mat between the handlebar and the mount to further reduce the vibration. Mine was steadied enough even at highway speeds I could easily read plate numbers on surrounding vehicles etc.

As for the speedo being admissible, it would for now until precedence is set, be up to the JP or judge, fr a more serious charge, weather to admit it or not. In the case of the guy showing his speedo at 300+ in BC the JP accepted the evidence of the video, for speed, but the accused was acquitted, because the crown failed to prove who was riding the bike at the time the video was shot. Yes, objects can be used to determine an "approximate speed" however, with video of the actual speedo and your being pulled over while riding the bike, they can now prove your EXACT speed.

Speedos only required to be calibrated and verified if used by an officer as the item used to determine the speed of another vehicle, IE pacing another vehicle then relying upon the cruiser speedo to lay a charge. Now a JP is likely to give "some" wiggle room, for a non calibrated speedo if your speedo shows your riding at 250+ km an hour the JP will rule your speedo isn't that far out that you could successfully argue you were doing the posted 100 km/h..lol

Have to disagree here, mainly because most bike mounted video often has lots of vibrations that reduce the image quality, and that are partly shrouded by bits of the motorcycle. The cameras longevity also suffers from the vibrations.

Regarding getting the speedo on camera, I don't think it makes any difference as anyone can always figure out your speed based on the precise location of elements of the scenery (like lane markings). In fact I don't think one's speedo is admissible evidence in court unless it's proven to be calibrated somehow at the time of the video. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As for an airborne camera, if the crash is that bad I've never seen a useful video image after the first contact.