Helmet camera legality?

[EastBayDave]

Helmet camera legality?:
Happened across this video today; & as I'm looking into small/light video cams to go on the bike/helmet/wherever, I'm curious what the CA law is?

I looked thru & searched, but couldn't find anything. I'm sure it's probably a repost, so can I just get a quick answer about "protruding items" not allowed per the below video's officer statement. (late in video)

Thanks folks,

-ebd
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5o5b6255xhs

 

[Mr Pepsi]

Like this one?
http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177120

EDIT, I see your question now, more about something "sticking out of the helmet"
Now I'm curious.

 

[sckego]

Helmet camera legality?:
Happened across this video today; & as I'm looking into small/light video cams to go on the bike/helmet/wherever, I'm curious what the CA law is?

I looked thru & searched, but couldn't find anything. I'm sure it's probably a repost, so can I just get a quick answer about "protruding items" not allowed per the below video's officer statement. (late in video)

Thanks folks,

-ebd
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5o5b6255xhs

CA code (CVC 27802) says that helmets must meet "...the requirements imposed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218 (49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.218)..."

FMVSS 218 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).

So yes, any camera mounted rigidly mounted to the helmet, that projects more than 5mm from the helmet shell, is illegal.

 

[RightCoastBias]

I just chin mount, i really dislike the top-of-helmet teletubby look. It doesn't take going very fast to feel the drag. If you're concerned about getting nabbed on the 5mm restriction, I'd suggest the chin mount, as it's less noticeable.

I'd also imagine this isn't really cited much. But something an officer would tag on if you're being a dick or if he is. Probably a law passed to address an issue not related to cameras.

 

[MCSFTGUY]

CA code (CVC 27802) says that helmets must meet "...the requirements imposed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218 (49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.218)..."

FMVSS 218 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).

So yes, any camera mounted rigidly mounted to the helmet, that projects more than 5mm from the helmet shell, is illegal.

I have to disagree with this post a bit... the data is right but the application is a bit different.

FMVSS 218 is a manufacturing standard, not a personal use standard. The discussion of rigid projection are there to prohibit the manufacture of any helmet with the described projections. They don't regulate the use of the helmet by riders. In other words, people can pretty much do whatever they want to the helmet after they purchase it.

Here is another little tibbit for you..... NHTSA oversees the FMVSS standards for motorcycles and personal passenger vehicles. Regarding FMVSS, NHTSA does minimal random testing of any of the helmets. Rather, the helmet makers certify to NHTSA that their helmets are compliant. This is actually true for all of the FMVSS standards..... makers certify to the govment that they are in compliance with standards... there is no govment testing and there is no govment certification of things.

 

[sckego]

I have to disagree with this post a bit... the data is right but the application is a bit different.

FMVSS 218 is a manufacturing standard, not a personal use standard. The discussion of rigid projection are there to prohibit the manufacture of any helmet with the described projections. They don't regulate the use of the helmet by riders. In other words, people can pretty much do whatever they want to the helmet after they purchase it.

"Sir, I modified my helmet by removing all of the material except this bit here with the "DOT" sticker on it, and then replacing the removed material with a ball cap. However, the helmet was originally manufactured per the requirements of FMVSS 218, and as such satisfies CVC 21802, and my post-purchase modifications do not affect the legality of my ballca-- er, helmet."

?

 

[Crjunkee]

Cops camera View
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt-HtnmUgfs

 

[MCSFTGUY]

Fair enough, I was not specific in my response.

If you alter the helmet so that it no longer complies with FMVSS, then you can be cited.

Now you could argue that using the mountings for a Go Pro or other recording device alters the performance of helmet shell.... but in reality how effective would that be if you are using the tape mounting that comes with the Go Pro. If you are using bolts or screws to put the mounting piece on the helmet and are changing the structural integrity of the helmet shell then that would be a problem. The pupose of the shell is to prevent intrusion and is tested by dropping a pointed anvil onto the shell at a set height, at or less than 6ft as I recall. If you effect the shell so that it is no longer capable of passing the intrusion test then it would be in violation.

I would submit that a small plastic mounting that is taped to the shell, leaving the shell surface intact would not effect the structual integrity of the helmet.

Now I suppose you could argue that the Go Pro creates a rotational hazard or some other impact hazard, but I would counter with the fact that the current FMVSS standard does not account for rotational forces.... which by the way are now being discovered as being the most significant brain injury causing force. As for the impact force, I would counter-argue that the surface area of the mounting exceeds the surface area of the point source used in the intrusion testing, and that the overall flexibility of the mounting will result in braking before helmet contact. I would go on to counter-argue that this braking represents an loss of some amount from the total impact energy which means the Go Pro is in fact causing a loss of some amount of potential injury causing energy, minimal at best but still.....but still a reduction in the contact energy available to produce injury.

 

[ateamer]

"Sir, I modified my helmet by removing all of the material except this bit here with the "DOT" sticker on it, and then replacing the removed material with a ball cap. However, the helmet was originally manufactured per the requirements of FMVSS 218, and as such satisfies CVC 21802, and my post-purchase modifications do not affect the legality of my ballca-- er, helmet."

?

That's about what that idiot poser around Santa Cruz used to claim.

 

[MCSFTGUY]

Cops camera View
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt-HtnmUgfs

And I just watched this video.... do you know how many published legitimate studies and reports from the medical and biomechanical research community there are that have concluded that the helmet won't break your neck.... I think there is even one or two on the NHTSA website.

But, PC is PC if you have the good faith belief.

 

[MCSFTGUY]

That's about what that idiot poser around Santa Cruz used to claim.

Richard Quigley...... In a previous life I had an opportunity to converse with him a few times... I will say this with pride, I was the only fed he would even talk to.

 

[ateamer]

I talked with him many times. The only thing bigger than his BS quotient was his ego. He really believed that he was The One with the only right answers. The real anti-helmet law people had no use for him because he acted like a jackass in front of the state legislature at a hearing, along with all his other grandstanding.

He also harassed female employees at a shopping center to the point where a store manager had to get a restraining order against him.

 

[EastBayDave]

CA code (CVC 27802) says that helmets must meet "...the requirements imposed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218 (49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.218)..."

FMVSS 218 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).

So yes, any camera mounted rigidly mounted to the helmet, that projects more than 5mm from the helmet shell, is illegal.

This is more what I was after; I want to record my riding, in case some bonehead tries to knock me off da bike. It's happened too many times to me already; way too many hit & runs w/o catching perps.

Not concerned about recording LEO's, as I haven't been stopped or had a ticket in like 3 decades! I got my maniac years out long, long ago= went racing f/the 70's-80's, & now do trackdays f/legal grins. I just cruise along now so I don't anticipate being stopped.

So I guess the answer is it's not legal for anything over 5mm on the helmet. I am a bit surprised, as so many are doing it. Guess I'll just have to put the camera on a convienent spot on the bike...?

Thank you for all the responses...

-ebd

 

[HeatXfer]

Cops camera View
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt-HtnmUgfs

Now that surprises me: the Officer felt the need to pursue this guy, who was obeying traffic laws, through the oncoming lane through an intersection? Really? because of a tail light? IMO that move wasn't warranted.

It seems like he just wanted to test his "out of the box" application of CVC 27802 violation: the "protruding from the helmet" shtick.

"Break your neck"? C'mon! That's not a legitimate claim because the mounts use adhesive tape, not bolts.

 

[Loki1000R]

i would have gotten a ticket for my reaction to his broken neck comment

looked like the brake light was functioning just fine. i couldn't see any light when he was just riding, only when he braked to pull over. so he really only needed the brake light to pursue his "agenda", the other two tickets were just added revenue for the local/state municipality

<<<for the officer, thanks for being a "reasonable" dick!

 

[MCSFTGUY]

This is more what I was after; I want to record my riding, in case some bonehead tries to knock me off da bike. It's happened too many times to me already; way too many hit & runs w/o catching perps.

Not concerned about recording LEO's, as I haven't been stopped or had a ticket in like 3 decades! I got my maniac years out long, long ago= went racing f/the 70's-80's, & now do trackdays f/legal grins. I just cruise along now so I don't anticipate being stopped.

So I guess the answer is it's not legal for anything over 5mm on the helmet. I am a bit surprised, as so many are doing it. Guess I'll just have to put the camera on a convienent spot on the bike...?

Thank you for all the responses...
-ebd

This is a fair and safe decision. However, to add some more info to this discussion I am going to pull out a past life card.... After I retired from the PD I worked for NHTSA for almost 9 years as a "Highway Safety Specialist" and one of my areas of expertise was motorcycle safety. My responsibilities included working with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, FMVSS all of the applicable ones to my areas.

All of the FMVSS standards, I think there are close to a hundred of them, are not enforceable standards.... there is no criminal action for non-compliance with any of these standards. IF by chance NHTSA finds a "manufacturer" that claims they are in compliance with a standard and they are not, NHTSA can file civil orders, mostly cease and desist orders. In a really bad case, NHTSA can get civil monetary penalties agains a manufacturer. That is it... nothing else... well other than getting a judge to shut down a business, but there is no jail penalties in civil actions... unless there is a contempt of court and that is the judge taking the action, not NHTSA.

FMVSS 218 sets the standard by which a helmet must be manufactured and it prohibits the manufacturer from making any helmet with a protrusion. Nothing in that standard prohibts a private party from adding a after market accessory to the helmet.... California Vehicle Codes section 27803 says that a helmet must comply with the manufacturing standards... again, nothing in this section prohibits an after market accessory....

So.... now here is the request to the LEOs, anybody know of a judge, retired or current, judge pro-tem or a lawyer that would sit in and adjudicate a mock trial on this? I will be the rider cited for the Go Pro on the helmet.... Which I use now on top of my helmet and will continue to do.... particularly since I believe I can beat a ticket for using a Go Pro.... Of course any mock trial has no baring on what may happen in any court.....

 

[MikeyRocks]

i would have gotten a ticket for my reaction to his broken neck comment

looked like the brake light was functioning just fine. i couldn't see any light when he was just riding, only when he braked to pull over. so he really only needed the brake light to pursue his "agenda", the other two tickets were just added revenue for the local/state municipality

<<<for the officer, thanks for being a "reasonable" dick!

He wasn't warning him about his brake light, not once did the officer say brake light. It was the tail light that was not functioning properly. You're required to have your head light and tail light on at all times when the vehicle is in motion on a highway in Washington (applies to motorcycles). I think the same law applies to for California.

 

[packnrat]

i do get it why would the cop not be willing to give the rider the number of the law he said was being broken?
enstead he said he can get a ticket?

i try to live with in the laws but there are so many and not just the motor codes, health and safety, so many.
how is anyone able to keep up with them all?

and if it was a crime should the officer not have been required to write said ticket? not that i am agenst getting a break.

would like to see more on this (from Ca, Was state and others).
as in any court held up such a ticket?
dumped it out?
adjusted what the cop said?

.

 

[Crzndog]

Did this ever get anywhere ? Has the law been clarified ?

This is a fair and safe decision. However, to add some more info to this discussion I am going to pull out a past life card.... After I retired from the PD I worked for NHTSA for almost 9 years as a "Highway Safety Specialist" and one of my areas of expertise was motorcycle safety. My responsibilities included working with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, FMVSS all of the applicable ones to my areas.

All of the FMVSS standards, I think there are close to a hundred of them, are not enforceable standards.... there is no criminal action for non-compliance with any of these standards. IF by chance NHTSA finds a "manufacturer" that claims they are in compliance with a standard and they are not, NHTSA can file civil orders, mostly cease and desist orders. In a really bad case, NHTSA can get civil monetary penalties agains a manufacturer. That is it... nothing else... well other than getting a judge to shut down a business, but there is no jail penalties in civil actions... unless there is a contempt of court and that is the judge taking the action, not NHTSA.

FMVSS 218 sets the standard by which a helmet must be manufactured and it prohibits the manufacturer from making any helmet with a protrusion. Nothing in that standard prohibts a private party from adding a after market accessory to the helmet.... California Vehicle Codes section 27803 says that a helmet must comply with the manufacturing standards... again, nothing in this section prohibits an after market accessory....

So.... now here is the request to the LEOs, anybody know of a judge, retired or current, judge pro-tem or a lawyer that would sit in and adjudicate a mock trial on this? I will be the rider cited for the Go Pro on the helmet.... Which I use now on top of my helmet and will continue to do.... particularly since I believe I can beat a ticket for using a Go Pro.... Of course any mock trial has no baring on what may happen in any court.....

 

[Akira-R]

Fair enough, I was not specific in my response.

If you alter the helmet so that it no longer complies with FMVSS, then you can be cited.

Now you could argue that using the mountings for a Go Pro or other recording device alters the performance of helmet shell.... but in reality how effective would that be if you are using the tape mounting that comes with the Go Pro. If you are using bolts or screws to put the mounting piece on the helmet and are changing the structural integrity of the helmet shell then that would be a problem. The pupose of the shell is to prevent intrusion and is tested by dropping a pointed anvil onto the shell at a set height, at or less than 6ft as I recall. If you effect the shell so that it is no longer capable of passing the intrusion test then it would be in violation.

I would submit that a small plastic mounting that is taped to the shell, leaving the shell surface intact would not effect the structual integrity of the helmet.

Now I suppose you could argue that the Go Pro creates a rotational hazard or some other impact hazard, but I would counter with the fact that the current FMVSS standard does not account for rotational forces.... which by the way are now being discovered as being the most significant brain injury causing force. As for the impact force, I would counter-argue that the surface area of the mounting exceeds the surface area of the point source used in the intrusion testing, and that the overall flexibility of the mounting will result in braking before helmet contact. I would go on to counter-argue that this braking represents an loss of some amount from the total impact energy which means the Go Pro is in fact causing a loss of some amount of potential injury causing energy, minimal at best but still.....but still a reduction in the contact energy available to produce injury.

I would say the purpose of the 5mm is more that your helmet is less likely to catch on something and rip your head off. If you crash and are sliding on the ground, those protrusions can catch on things and cause more injury. The tape on a gopro can be pretty strong. It's not designed to shed off on contact, it's designed to stay on with a reasonable amount of force.

If you crash, you want the helmet to just slide as smoothly as possible with little chance of catching on something, or having something large and rigid cause the helmet to bounce/jump around while sliding.