Helmet laws in Ontaro

[hedo2002]

I think that a better direction might be to state that the helmet was not "modified", therefore it still meets the requirements. No permanent attachment was made and, if possible, find manufacturer's information stating that the mount is designed to detach in a crash, thereby preserving the helmet's function.

I thought the OP stated that the GoPro was in fact Attached to the helmet, (Not via the suction cup mount). if that is the case then this avenue is no longer open. Bringing the helmet with a mount glued to it, would just bolster the Crown's position.

@riceburner. The law that is contravened is already been stated, ON the ticket, hence the charge.
I

 

[Robbo]

Happened last week. Just south of Lindsay. Was riding back from Peterborough - not speeding, just a leisurely cruise on my HD ElectraGlide. Had the GoPro on my helmet. Noticed an OPP SUV behind me with flashing lights.. thought he wanted to pass, so I pulled over... but so did he. I got off the bike, removed my helmet and turned the cam off, and politely ask what's up as he approaches. Has asks if that is a camera on my helmet. I say it is. He says do you know that is illegal, I reply politely again that I was not aware of that. He says I have modified a DOT approved helmet, and therefore it is no longer DOT approved, so I am riding without an approved helmet. He tells me to remove it from my helmet. He then says, and I quote "give me your license so I can write you a ticket" Never asked for registration or insurance. Not even a warning. He comes back with the $110 ticket and says I seem to have a good driving record - and that I can fight the ticket at the court house across the street. The next day I go to the courthouse and ask for a court date. They say it will take 4 to 6 weeks. The actual text of the infraction is "fail to wear proper helmet on a motorcycle" - which is think is rather subjective.. what constitutes a 'proper helmet'?

So, I am trying to figure out the actual law that is supposed to apply in this circumstance, but have been unable to find anything specifically related to this case.

I have made some online inquiries, and apparently OPP Officer N. Hoogerdyk is well known to making frivolous stops and giving out tickets. If you happen to have an encounter with him, do not argue.. be polite and fight it in court. He is known for taking riders' helmets and putting them in his vehicle, leaving you with no means of driving your bike home. A real dyk!

When he asked you to remove the camera from the helmet, did he make you remove both the camera and mount or just the camera? Also, did he thoroughly inspect the helmet to determine if it was otherwise damaged/fractured in and around the camera mounting point?

What documented evidence has the officer provided to you that supports his determination that the helmet was unsafe? If he hasn’t provided that already to you in disclosure, my understanding is that it cannot be presented as evidence.

I recently bought a new helmet so I pulled out the official Bell Helmet Instructional Manual. There are a number of warnings including the following:

“Never rigidly attach anything to the outside of your helmet. If struck in an accident it can cause the force of the blow to be more concentrated and greatly increase your chance of injury or death.”

Nowhere does it state in the manual that the helmet becomes “unsafe”.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Robbo]

Also, if the argument is given that the helmet’s shell was no longer hard and smooth, one could argue that the outer shell was intact and had not been drilled or cut. Therefore, the outer shell remained a smooth, hard surface underneath the mount.

Then present the helmet with the mount detached to prove that the outer shell was and still is a smooth hard surface.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GreyGhost]

“Never rigidly attach anything to the outside of your helmet. If struck in an accident it can cause the force of the blow to be more concentrated and greatly increase your chance of injury or death.”

GoPro double-sided tape isn't very rigid. The mount could concentrate force if you landed square on the mount (but the camera getting smashed out of the way would absorb some force so are you net up or down?).

 

[nakkers]

It’s all about how things are written.

The charge is riding with a modified helmet.

There is nothing more. It’s vague on purpose. It’s not suppose to define what can or cannot be attached to a helmet.

So, sticking a GoPro with a mount that uses adhesive tape can be interpreted by LE as a modification and write a ticket.

Will the JP or judge dismiss? Based on the charge and the law, they really don’t have much use and would likely convict.

I’m no judge. And I think it stinks.

But I can see how folks end up on the wrong side of things.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Robbo]

Sorry I thought the charge was riding with an unsafe helmet.

If it actually is riding with a modified helmet, that I can’t argue against.

Can the OP quote the charge as stated on the ticket so we have clarity please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Riceburner]

....@riceburner. The law that is contravened is already been stated, ON the ticket, hence the charge....

OP what does it say on the ticket? Was it already posted and I missed it?

 

[nakkers]

Happened last week. Just south of Lindsay. Was riding back from Peterborough - not speeding, just a leisurely cruise on my HD ElectraGlide. Had the GoPro on my helmet. Noticed an OPP SUV behind me with flashing lights.. thought he wanted to pass, so I pulled over... but so did he. I got off the bike, removed my helmet and turned the cam off, and politely ask what's up as he approaches. Has asks if that is a camera on my helmet. I say it is. He says do you know that is illegal, I reply politely again that I was not aware of that. He says I have modified a DOT approved helmet, and therefore it is no longer DOT approved, so I am riding without an approved helmet. He tells me to remove it from my helmet. He then says, and I quote "give me your license so I can write you a ticket" Never asked for registration or insurance. Not even a warning. He comes back with the $110 ticket and says I seem to have a good driving record - and that I can fight the ticket at the court house across the street. The next day I go to the courthouse and ask for a court date. They say it will take 4 to 6 weeks. The actual text of the infraction is "fail to wear proper helmet on a motorcycle" - which is think is rather subjective.. what constitutes a 'proper helmet'?

So, I am trying to figure out the actual law that is supposed to apply in this circumstance, but have been unable to find anything specifically related to this case.

I have made some online inquiries, and apparently OPP Officer N. Hoogerdyk is well known to making frivolous stops and giving out tickets. If you happen to have an encounter with him, do not argue.. be polite and fight it in court. He is known for taking riders' helmets and putting them in his vehicle, leaving you with no means of driving your bike home. A real dyk!

Sorry, it was,”fail to wear proper helmet on a motorcycle"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Robbo]

Okay thx for the clarification.

So on the Ontario Court of Justice website, Schedule 43 “The Highway Traffic Act”...

Item 271
Fail to wear proper helmet on motorcycle
Section 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).

Set Fine: $85.00

I guess there must be a $25.00 processing/admin fee to bring it up to $110.00


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Riceburner]

Show up with the helmet without the camera attached and ask how it contravenes the act?

 

[Trials]

Show up with the helmet without the camera attached and ask how it contravenes the act?

Show up where? court or police station?
:lol: either way if it's full coverage :I dare you to Wear the helmet and refuse to take it off for your own safety.

 

[hedo2002]

Show up with the helmet without the camera attached and ask how it contravenes the act?

Doesn't matter what the helmet "looks" like that day, it was how it was outfitted when the offence occurred. You can't show up in court sober 4 months later and say show me how I was impaired..lol

 

[hedo2002]

Exactly, People are confusing what the helmet manufaturer's tag states and what the LAW in ONTARIO states. Manufacturers build things to conform to the widest possible market. Just as Radar Detector manufacturers don't put on a label that says "this is illegal in Ontario" instead they say check with your local laws, to CYA their butts.

The reg states a helmet can NOT have anything ATTACHED, to the helmet which protrudes more than 5 mm, This would include the "mohawks", "spikes" "cameras", (not limited to GoPro). Technically, the mount is attached regardless if you use crazy glue, tape, etc. That is why communicators ARE permitted as they "clamp" to the side of the helmet and as such sit "adjacent to" the outer shell they are NOT attached to it.

I get it, people think this is a silly regulation. I don't know the reasoning behind it, but assume it was likely that a manufacturer, (likely for liability reasons with lawyers involved), said they "couldn't certify the safety of the helmet" with something attached to it. So some bureaucrat wrote the reg. Trying to come up with a "creative" way to try to beat the charge, "may" end up pissing of the JP. The courts have ruled, (the rulings stand for now, until someone spends the tens of thousands on an appeal).

Therefore why paint a target on your back, (especially in the Kawartha Lakes, where they seem to have a hard on for this charge)? Just remove the camera, and mount it elsewhere. Having a camera mounted ON your helmet is not a safety issue, which is going to prevent or save you during a crash. mount it to your bike. Sure, some of you might think you get a "better view" from the top of your head. But if your truly using it for the sake of security in the event of a crash, then the best view you can have is from the bike looking forward, where the vast majority of bike collisions occur. Just not worth the hassle to me.

Okay thx for the clarification.

So on the Ontario Court of Justice website, Schedule 43 “The Highway Traffic Act”...

Item 271
Fail to wear proper helmet on motorcycle
Section 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).

Set Fine: $85.00

I guess there must be a $25.00 processing/admin fee to bring it up to $110.00


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GreenPlane]

I have another question regarding this subject. I have a communicator that has 2 pieces: the base which is attached to the helmet using double sided tape and the unit itself. The base is less than 5mm height and my helmet doesn't allow to use a "clamp" just because of the design. So, does it mean that I'm violating the law?

 

[Robbo]

Exactly, People are confusing what the helmet manufaturer's tag states and what the LAW in ONTARIO states. Manufacturers build things to conform to the widest possible market. Just as Radar Detector manufacturers don't put on a label that says "this is illegal in Ontario" instead they say check with your local laws, to CYA their butts.

The reg states a helmet can NOT have anything ATTACHED, to the helmet which protrudes more than 5 mm, This would include the "mohawks", "spikes" "cameras", (not limited to GoPro). Technically, the mount is attached regardless if you use crazy glue, tape, etc. That is why communicators ARE permitted as they "clamp" to the side of the helmet and as such sit "adjacent to" the outer shell they are NOT attached to it.

I get it, people think this is a silly regulation. I don't know the reasoning behind it, but assume it was likely that a manufacturer, (likely for liability reasons with lawyers involved), said they "couldn't certify the safety of the helmet" with something attached to it. So some bureaucrat wrote the reg. Trying to come up with a "creative" way to try to beat the charge, "may" end up pissing of the JP. The courts have ruled, (the rulings stand for now, until someone spends the tens of thousands on an appeal).

Therefore why paint a target on your back, (especially in the Kawartha Lakes, where they seem to have a hard on for this charge)? Just remove the camera, and mount it elsewhere. Having a camera mounted ON your helmet is not a safety issue, which is going to prevent or save you during a crash. mount it to your bike. Sure, some of you might think you get a "better view" from the top of your head. But if your truly using it for the sake of security in the event of a crash, then the best view you can have is from the bike looking forward, where the vast majority of bike collisions occur. Just not worth the hassle to me.

So you could clamp a go pro to your helmet similar to a communications device...but you can’t attach a go pro to the outer shell with tape or glue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hedo2002]

That is what the courts have ruled, as the camera mount, (weather glued or taped), exceeds 5 mm. If you could find a clamping device that is not attached to the outer shell. The communicator itself merely rests against the outer shell. Having owned 4 GoPros and a few other similar camera products, I haven't seen a clamping option, especially one that I would trust with my helmet, at speed.

The crowns seem to be having some success, in the Lindsay courts, (I believe there have been 3 - 4 cases, all of which ended in a conviction). That is why I said especially in that area, don't use a helmet with a camera mounted to it, (or for that matter even a helmet with just the mount attached, as the mount exceeds 5 mm)

So you could clamp a go pro to your helmet similar to a communications device...but you can’t attach a go pro to the outer shell with tape or glue?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jayell]

Would this set-up be in violation of the law?

via Tapatalk

 

[GreenPlane]

Would this set-up be in violation of the law?

via Tapatalk

It is actually interesting, I would assume that by the law this adventure visor should be illegal too. It is mounted to the outer shell and as a result, it is not smooth anymore, right?

 

[Trials]

Was the visor attached when the helmet was tested and determined to comply with safety requirements? I think maybe yes, but the camera was likely added and the visor raised way up to clear it. Is not about reality it's about what can I nail this guy with now that I have pulled him over. and that !@#$% camera is right in my face.

 

[hedo2002]

It is actually interesting, I would assume that by the law this adventure visor should be illegal too. It is mounted to the outer shell and as a result, it is not smooth anymore, right?

The regulation states nothing can protrude more than 5 MM UNLESS it is installed by the manufacturer, so visors ARE legal. As Trials states above the manufacturer has done the testing and certified the helmet with the visor attached.

As for the camera, IF the mount were INSTALLED by the manufacturer then yes that setup would be legal. If the manufacturer simply put mounting holes in the shell but didn't install the mount then it is still a violation. Remember manufacturers at times install things to be compliant in SOME but not all jurisdictions. For some reason Ontario has this strange regulation. Think of it in another fashion the MAXIMUM speed limit in Ontario is 100 Km/h yet manufacturers build vehicles that exceed 100 km/h, that doesn't make it legal to drive at 200 km/h just because the manufacturer built the vehicle that can do so...lol