Info Court case worth following - Helmet cam

A Victorian Magistrate has upheld a $150 fine against a motorcycle rider for wearing a helmet camera, finding that the relevant laws were publicly available despite evidence that they weren’t.

http://motorbikewriter.com/helmet-camera-deemed-illegal/

 

Unfortunately, we lost the helmet camera case today. The charge was found to be proven, with the fine reduced and no conviction recorded.

Maurice Blackburn Lawy...er Malcolm Cumming said outside court:

"This result is a disappointing outcome for riders and for motorcycle safety.

Riders tell us they wear helmet cameras to improve their safety while on the roads, and that drivers and other road users show more care when there is a camera in use.

And if there is a road accident or collision, helmet camera footage is among the best evidence you can get.

Riders should not be penalised for trying to improve the safety of their riding.

The law needs to catch up with common practice.

Thanks to everyone who has expressed their support for this cause on the SMIDSY Facebook page.

Helmet laws across Australia are generally a dogs breakfast. We continue to call for urgent reform in the law to fix the ambiguity around compliance of helmets with Australian Standards.

In Queensland and South Australia, the road rules specify that when compliance with an Australian Standard is required, then there is compliance once and for all if a product complies at manufacture.

We are encouraging the Victorian Government to introduce a similar law to clarify that helmets only need to comply once with the Australian Standards, and this is at the point of manufacture. In other words, once a helmet is approved, it cannot become unapproved.

We will continue to push for standardised national helmet laws that embrace new technology and rider safety."

 

Quoted from FB

Here is more information regarding yesterdays court case regarding a gopro camera mounted to a helmet. If you are going to pass comment please read the whole thing first is there is a fair bit of info here.

Okay. Firstly, the case that was found proven today at Frankston Magistrates' Court was determined on the basis that wearing a helmet that doesn't comply with AS/NZS 1678 makes you guilty of offence of failing to wear an approved helmet.

One of the requirements of AS/NZS 1678 is that there can be no external rigid protrusions greater than 5mm. In this case, the device in question was a GoPro, the nature of the mounts for that particular type of device includes a post/ stem that extends perpendicular from the base at length greater than 5mm (as opposed to a Contour or similar device where the fixed component doesn't protrude beyond 5mm). The rationale behind the relevant legislation & standard being that (in accordance with the philosophy of such high end manufacturers such as Arai) that a fixed rigid protrusion greater than 5mm creates a significant risk of causing injury to the cervical spine due to rotational force of such a protrusion catching & dragging in the event of a crash/slide event, or alternatively for a post mount like in the case of GoPro potentially compromising the integrity of the shell & causing an intracranial injury ala Schumacher.

Regarding the prosecution of this case by Vicpol, the offence was detected by a member of the HWP who issued an infringement which was then referred to court by the accused. A brief of evidence was then compiled & forwarded to the Prosecutions Division.

Prosecutions then evaluate whether or not there is sufficient evidence to have the matter proven beyond reasonable doubt & if it is the public interest to proceed to prosecute. In the case it was firstly determined that there was at law a case to answer, but secondly that as it was considered a technical & therefore relatively minor breach of legislation, that it is was appropriate for the matter to be found proven & dismissed with no penalty by the court under s.76 of the Sentencing Act. This was rejected by the accused's legal reps Maurice Blackburn, as was a later offer to have the matter withdrawn with no costs being sought against the prosecution on the basis of it not bring in the public interest to have the matter proceed to contest once the legal position, as stated by the prosecution, had been sufficiently publicised. So in short they offered to drop the fine but the defendant and lawyers wanted their day in court (personally I would have taken that win and gone home happy).

Therefore the matter ran on it's merits & was found proven, confirming the stance taken in this case regarding the legality of that particular type of device (& in particular it's mounting system).

The bottom line in the wash up of today's events is therefore as such:
It's legal to mount a camera to your bike.
It's legal to body wear a GoPro or similar device or similar if you are prepared to accept the risk of injury that attaches to having solid objects on or about your body when riding.
However, if you choose to RIGIDLY mount any device to your helmet via screws, pins, adhesives or similar, any FIXED & RIGID component of that device that is attached to your helmet cannot legally protrude beyond the OUTER shell of the helmet by greater than 5mm. (buy a contour roam or any camera that has a thin mount unlike the gopro)

This is all about education / information & making sure the membership are appropriately advised in such a way to maximise enjoyment of our common interest while minimising risk (both physically & legally).

 

I think the main point should be whether u compromise the integrity of the helmet by drilling holes in it or screwing into it as opposed to using an 'adhesive' ..... sticking on a cam mount would be no different than putting stickers on.

If u are drilling or wateva into your helmet then it wont matter ...u obviously have no brain in your head to protect anyway.