Thoughts?
I love how they ban them because of research, yet still no research on air vests.
I understand their thought process that hitting a head with a helmet cam on it could potentially lead to greater injury. But with no research out there, seems a bit big-brotherish to me.
I agree about the research part. The evidence is lacking, but there’s no push for research on more important aspects of safety in riding. Air vests, styrofoam logs, etc.
Also, the genesis of the helmet-cam scare seem to be in speculative journalism about Michael Schumacher’s skiing accident. I don’t know why it’s gained so much traction with so little evidence.
That said, I won’t miss helmet cams at all. I have zero interest in watching a horse’s ears and the side of a helmet going around an XC course. When I watch equestrian videos, I want to see the whole horse – how it goes, how it jumps – and to a (much) lesser extent, the rider.
Helmet cams have been useful to me to scout xc courses, especially with all that’s been discussed in the recent “course creep” threads. I like to know what to prepare for at a specific venue as well as what may be seen at the level in general across the country.
I have used a helmet cam for the last three years. I do not see them as a problem. Owners, friends, and family (that don’t ride) love them because they get to see the ride from your perspective. They really do not offer any schooling aid. For the last year I have also utilized one with a gps so you can see speeds etc. I definitely see that it is possible for the camera mounts (some screw in etc) to compromise the helmet shell, but there is no data supporting this yet. Mountain bikers have been using them for years…and I have not seen reports of any helmet cam head injuries there and those guys wreck all the time. I had two cameras, just sold one to purchase video recording sunglasses to circumvent this ban. If people want to get up in arms about something they should scream at riders that continue to ride in helmets they have dropped, or fallen in hundreds of times, or are a decade old. Helmets are good for ONE drop after which time you compromise them so… I used to spend a lot of time on motorcycles at the racetrack and if you hit your head on the ground once, you threw that helmet away and bought another to the tune of $100-500 a piece, your head is worth it. Maybe the USEF should rule on that which would protect more rider’s heads than banning helmet cams.
I have one that I use for fun - and my friends got to see what foxhunting in Ireland was like. I haven’t ever used it for events, but I do learn from others what is on a course -much better than plain pictures.
I find it a little ironic that there are 27 pages of protests and discussion about a PROPOSED rule change, but nary a peep about something passed, effective immediately, based on a reporter’s speculation about an incident at a car race (or was it a ski accident? I heard car race - so not even the rumor is consistent!)
Are you effing kidding me? A French journalist speculates on the possibility that a mounted helmet cam affected the structural integrity of a helmet in a sport completely unrelated to Eventing so now they’re banned?
WTH. I haven’t heard or known of one single person that mounted their camera with anything other than sticky tape or elastic bands. How does that affect the helmet’s integrity again?
Riding is inherently a risky sport, especially XC. With all the areas that have an established history of NEEDING more research (i.e. frangible construction, air vests, fence types), why are we using resources to look for problems that, to my knowledge, have never been reported.
Seriously, have you ever heard someone say “gosh, if only I wasn’t wearing my helmet cam I’d still have a skull”.
Sorry, I think this is ridiculous. I’m a safety nazi and I enjoy the crap out of my helmet cam.
Honestly I think the frenzy over helmet cams is less about what danger they might present to the wearer and more about the liability they may present by having video evidence to review to in case of a catastrophic injury of the rider wearing.
I think it’s absolutely ridiculous. As Jealoushe pointed out there is NO evidence to support this, yet air vests, who are also lacking in research, are being touted as the best thing ever.
I’m bummed. I was super pumped to get a helmet cam so my family back home could see my ride from my perspective. I rarely get pictures or video of my riding, and I LOVE watching other helmet cams for course scouting and entertainment.
[QUOTE=Manahmanah;7831849]
Honestly I think the frenzy over helmet cams is less about what danger they might present to the wearer and more about the liability they may present by having video evidence to review to in case of a catastrophic injury of the rider wearing.[/QUOTE]
Ding ding, I think we have a winner!
[QUOTE=Manahmanah;7831849]
Honestly I think the frenzy over helmet cams is less about what danger they might present to the wearer and more about the liability they may present by having video evidence to review to in case of a catastrophic injury of the rider wearing.[/QUOTE]
I would think it would be due to the distraction factor of wearing it; think “selfies” gone ballistic. As a stunt once in a blue moon, fine, if worn by an expert rider to make a training film. Standard operating equipment? Nope–too much potential for gadget-focused idiocy.
The money spent on the dubious “protection” of air vests might be much better spent on more cross-country schools under a qualified trainer.
[QUOTE=Manahmanah;7831849]
Honestly I think the frenzy over helmet cams is less about what danger they might present to the wearer and more about the liability they may present by having video evidence to review to in case of a catastrophic injury of the rider wearing.[/QUOTE]
This was my first thought too.
I enjoy watching people’s helmet cam videos.
[QUOTE=Hilary;7831831]
I find it a little ironic that there are 27 pages of protests and discussion about a PROPOSED rule change, but nary a peep about something passed, effective immediately, based on a reporter’s speculation about an incident at a car race (or was it a ski accident? I heard car race - so not even the rumor is consistent!)[/QUOTE]
He is a race car driver (extremely famous F1) but it happened during a skiing accident so you sorta pushed two things together.
I think it’s a fabulous idea, actually
And I’m a bit surprised by the backlash.
I completely understand that research needs to be done and the Schumacher thing seems to be speculation. However… can anyone seriously argue that the benefit is worth the risk?
You only have one brain. If we can all agree on that (and I hope we can, even on COTH), then doesn’t it make sense to put a moratorium on helmet cam use until we know they don’t compromise the efficacy of the helmet in a fall?
Helmet cams are becoming so popular in every extreme sport that requires a helmet – from riding to whitewater kayaking to BMX to skydiving – we SHOULD, we NEED to have information on how these cameras affect how those helmets work. It would benefit far more than just the equestrian community.
If a few studies are done (preferably not funded by GoPro) and the results don’t indicate any increased safety risks or decreased helmet function, then go for it.
But what these cameras provide is a novelty and a bit of fun. They don’t provide anything worth risking a TBI over, not even close.
The chances of sustaining a TBI in the dressage ring are not that high, and yet we (almost) all agree that the risk of brain injury isn’t worth the benefit of looking tradition in a hunt cap or top hat. Why wouldn’t “better safe than sorry” apply here, too, ESPECIALLY given the potential risks v. minimal benefits?
[QUOTE=NeverTime;7832037]
Why wouldn’t “better safe than sorry” apply here, too, ESPECIALLY given the potential risks v. minimal benefits?[/QUOTE]
In reality, you can’t say what the potential risks are without research - and the benefits may be more than minimal! Not arguing for either side, but trying to be logical.
Benefits might include:
Training aid
Help decipher what happened in event of fall **** this could be a big one
Course previews
Entertainment
Promotion of Three Day Eventing
You could say the risk is a TBI - but we have no research or proof of this, I can just as easily say it could give you cancer…but we have no clue without facts.
Just like air vests.
[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;7831958]
I would think it would be due to the distraction factor of wearing it; think “selfies” gone ballistic. As a stunt once in a blue moon, fine, if worn by an expert rider to make a training film. Standard operating equipment? Nope–too much potential for gadget-focused idiocy.
The money spent on the dubious “protection” of air vests might be much better spent on more cross-country schools under a qualified trainer.[/QUOTE]
Huh? “Selfie gone ballistic”?? What on earth …
I don’t even know how a selfie with a helmet cam is even logistically possible. And if you’ve ever seen the ones most commonly used for xc you would know that they’re less distracting than pushing the correct button on your big yellow watch (especially with gloves on). It is literally designed to be done with one hand and without looking. Really doesn’t take an “expert rider” to pull it off. Hell, a drunken monkey could so it.
There is no research to prove that they are unsafe just as there is no research to prove that they are. They haven’t been used enough and in a controlled enough setting to evaluate that they do or do not contribute to injuries. It’s like seat belts being just introduced and saying “Well, I never drive with a seatbelt and neither do my friends and that hasn’t ever caused a problem that I know of.” I think that prohibiting their use until this can be investigated is a good idea since the concern is the cause/exacerbation of a brain or spinal injury. There are a lot of serious and fatal head injuries in riding, and eventing takes a lot of heat for the risk involved to horse and rider. Doing all that we can to minimize these risks is important. I don’t understand why people are so upset about this. The tradeoff is that you don’t get to see video from the rider’s perspective. That doesn’t trump safety. If you think a video is worth more than your brain…maybe it is.
The recent discussion on this a few weeks ago brought up some good points.
I don’t think the research onus is on the regulatory bodies here or overseas (I suspect we can all agree that this is coming out of the UK ruling), it IS on the helmet cam manufacturers who developed this amazing tech & then said go & attach this to your helmets
- whose manufacturers DO need to manufacture to safety standards.
Where is the research by the Helmet Cam companies proving that their product is not compromising - in any way - the integrity of the helmet.
How did this product ever get on to the market, knowing the intended, extremely promoted use - for which no safety tests had been conducted 
There is an incredible hypocrisy in holding helmet manufacturers to a rigorous standard of manufacture & performance, and then allowing the physical attachment (& possible alteration) by a product of a second party manufacturer.
I’m surprised that helmet manufacturers have not reacted to this already, and, at the least, removed ANY and ALL product warranty.
[QUOTE=CrowneDragon;7832100]
There is no research to prove that they are unsafe just as there is no research to prove that they are. They haven’t been used enough and in a controlled enough setting to evaluate that they do or do not contribute to injuries. It’s like seat belts being just introduced and saying “Well, I never drive with a seatbelt and neither do my friends and that hasn’t ever caused a problem that I know of.” I think that prohibiting their use until this can be investigated is a good idea since the concern is the cause/exacerbation of a brain or spinal injury. There are a lot of serious and fatal head injuries in riding, and eventing takes a lot of heat for the risk involved to horse and rider. Doing all that we can to minimize these risks is important. I don’t understand why people are so upset about this. The tradeoff is that you don’t get to see video from the rider’s perspective. That doesn’t trump safety. If you think a video is worth more than your brain…maybe it is.
The recent discussion on this a few weeks ago brought up some good points.[/QUOTE]
CrowneDragon, you are one of the posters that I almost always agree with, but these kind of sweeping “if you cared about your brain” statements just irk me. Suggesting that I, or anyone else for that matter, realistically care more about a video than about my own brain is just ridiculous.
It’s like making any other preposterous over generalization. We all suspend a degree of safety every time we engage in an adrenaline activity for the sake of entertainment; rollercoasters, white water rafting, bungee jumping, whatever.
There are lots of ways to crunch your noggin on the way to ground besides a 5.1 oz camera taped to the side of your helmet. Hitting a tree, a root, a rock, an obstacle or a even low hanging branch at speed is going to cause whatever damage it’s going to cause, with or without a camera.
I completely concede that wearing one may or may not add an additional risk, just like wearing an air vest may or may not add an additional risk. Yet vests are not only allowed, the USEA even has advertisements for them and riders are sponsored by them. Personally, I won’t wear an air vest because I believe the risk outweighs the reward and I’m waiting for research to support otherwise.
My beef is not that helmet cam safety shouldn’t be investigated, it’s that the USEF has unilaterally ruled on an issue that, thus far, has not been an issue.
BTW, I am a medical professional and I see every variety of trauma you can think of. Even some that would surprise you 
[QUOTE=ACMEeventing;7832182]
CrowneDragon, you are one of the posters that I almost always agree with, but these kind of sweeping “if you cared about your brain” statements just irk me. Suggesting that I, or anyone else for that matter, realistically care more about a video than about my own brain is just ridiculous.
It’s like making any other preposterous over generalization. We all suspend a degree of safety every time we engage in an adrenaline activity for the sake of entertainment; rollercoasters, white water rafting, bungee jumping, whatever.
There are lots of ways to crunch your noggin on the way to ground besides a 5.1 oz camera taped to the side of your helmet. Hitting a tree, a root, a rock, an obstacle or a even low hanging branch at speed is going to cause whatever damage it’s going to cause, with or without a camera.
I completely concede that wearing one may or may not add an additional risk, just like wearing an air vest may or may not add an additional risk. Yet vests are not only allowed, the USEA even has advertisements for them and riders are sponsored by them. Personally, I won’t wear an air vest because I believe the risk outweighs the reward and I’m waiting for research to support otherwise.
My beef is not that helmet cam safety shouldn’t be investigated, it’s that the USEF has unilaterally ruled on an issue that, thus far, has not been an issue.
BTW, I am a medical professional and I see every variety of trauma you can think of. Even some that would surprise you ;)[/QUOTE]
I have not seen helmet cams taped in place. They have to be strongly adhered one way or the other so they stay perfectly still as you run and jump. All I have seen are glued with strong adhesive or screwed into the helmet with a bracket, and aren’t going to budge easily. The GoPro mounts I have seen are designed to be used with adhesive. If you land on that it’s going to have some kind of effect. There’s no safety release so the thing pops off in case of emergency. If they came off easily, they wouldn’t work.
My statement is just that we don’t know if these things are safe. They provide nothing but entertainment and some educational value and yet some people are outraged that they aren’t allowed to be used right now. “I don’t know if this is safe but I want to use it anyway.” The concern is safety. Once that has been evaluated I would be comfortable using one. In the mean time, my safety is more important than a helmet video. There are some risks that are unavoidable, as you listed. Helmet cams are avoidable. It’s like saying that running around through the house is dangerous, so I might as well run around the house with scissors in my hand.
I like helmet cams and I think they are fun, but I also thing the safety concern is warranted and I hope it cam be investigated properly and if there are issues, that those can be addressed.
