No one is outraged…at least not that I have seen in this thread.
I am biased because I just cannot stand helmet cams. Watching them makes me queasy and prone to vomit. I am field independent, to an extreme.
Seriously though. If I were a helmet company, I would void any warranty if a hard object was attached to the outside of the helmet. It just makes common sense that there might be a risk. This is not comparable to adding a piece of safety equipment that may not help; it is simple adding something that may alter the effectiveness of a piece of safety equipment. I do not believe that we have to await data to indicate that the helmet cams are harmful… one could come up with examples using the same logic that would sound absurd…
And the research is going to be difficulty to conduct as it involves proving that there is no effect, alas, confirming the null… eeegads…
Yeah, but if you worked in medical trauma, you would know what can happen…wait… 
I find the ridiculous as well. Not only is my video useful to me to see where I was looking & review my rides, but friends & family love to see them, and I have two that mean a lot to me, as they are wonderful rides on my beloved horse I can’t ride at that level anymore!!
BTW, my helmet cam is not even taped to my helmet. It is mounted on a strap which buckles around the helmet itself. If the plastic buckle didn’t break, the strap would slide off anyway.
I wonder how many people who protest wear their ginormous “smart” phones on their waist or in a pocket when they ride, even on competition grounds? Now THAT is dangerous & there ARE data showing serious back & hip injuries from landing on a stupid phone.
The same organization that doesn’t require all riders in all disciplines to wear helmets in competition bans helmet cams due to potential risk of death or TBI? Okay then.
[QUOTE=seabreeze;7832405]
The same organization that doesn’t require all riders in all disciplines to wear helmets in competition bans helmet cams due to potential risk of death or TBI? Okay then.[/QUOTE]
Touché
Reality check:
We’re participants and promoters of a sport that entails sitting on a 1,200 lb. beast of flight and running it full-tilt at solid obstacles, as often as not in dubious control . . . and we’re worried about the Solla Sollew eyeball mounted on the top of the HAT “hurting” us? PRIORITIES, people! 
This is truly one of the funniest threads on COTH lately.
Why don’t they just make the helmet-cam mount a glue-on plastic piece that will break away like an eggshell in the event of impact? OR, (what a concept!) let adults decide for themselves if they want to assume the risk of wearing the foolish thing to begin with? Guaranteed liability fears are driving this somewhat ridiculous argument.
ACME, I think that if you have a helmet cam that you can’t use right now you should stick it on Cotton so the thrill seekers can get their fix. 
But won’t banning helmet cameras just make way for things such as HD recording sunglasses? My husband has a pair of them and it’s a lot less hassle than strapping on a GoPro!
[QUOTE=wildlifer;7832378]
I wonder how many people who protest wear their ginormous “smart” phones on their waist or in a pocket when they ride, even on competition grounds? Now THAT is dangerous & there ARE data showing serious back & hip injuries from landing on a stupid phone.[/QUOTE]
You call yourself a scientist, yet you’re using data about ‘stupid phones’ to claim that ‘smart phones’ are dangerous.
Sorry, not buying it.
I’m mostly surprised that this is coming from USEF and not the helmet companies. As other folks have commented, I’d kind of expect the helmet folks to come out and say “look, you do this, we can’t be sure the helmet will work as expected because we haven’t tested for that, so don’t come to us when your helmet fails.”
Also, if they are willing to make a sweeping statement about helmet cams until proven safe, can we have something similar about air vests until they are tested properly?
The sport isn’t “safe.” It isn’t ever GOING to be “safe.” No amount of safety technology, swaddling oneself in a suit of Kevlar armor with a hat that would stop a howitzer shell, is going to keep you from a rotational fall with 1,200 lbs. of incoming horse smashing you into the next world.
I find the absurd trust people place in things like air vests or even helmets to be just laughable–almost like some kind of talismanic thinking, “If I wear this, I’m invincible.” LEARN TO RIDE WELL and then ASSUME THE RISK. If everyone stopped looking around for someone to blame and sue every time they screw up or sh*t happens, the sport would have a lot less of this legalistic BS mucking it up!
[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;7832541]
The sport isn’t “safe.” It isn’t ever GOING to be “safe.” No amount of safety technology, swaddling oneself in a suit of Kevlar armor with a hat that would stop a howitzer shell, is going to keep you from a rotational fall with 1,200 lbs. of incoming horse smashing you into the next world.
I find the absurd trust people place in things like air vests or even helmets to be just laughable–almost like some kind of talismanic thinking, “If I wear this, I’m invincible.” LEARN TO RIDE WELL and then ASSUME THE RISK. If everyone stopped looking around for someone to blame and sue every time they screw up or sh*t happens, the sport would have a lot less of this legalistic BS mucking it up![/QUOTE]
Exactly!
[QUOTE=CrowneDragon;7832472]
ACME, I think that if you have a helmet cam that you can’t use right now you should stick it on Cotton so the thrill seekers can get their fix. ;)[/QUOTE]
That’s actually a great idea! They haven’t banned “saddle-cams” 
[QUOTE=ACMEeventing;7832746]
That’s actually a great idea! They haven’t banned “saddle-cams” :)[/QUOTE]
I have actually never used my go pro for horse related activities but I have always wondered how securely I could mount it onto a browband for fun.
[QUOTE=CrowneDragon;7832211]
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.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=kdow;7832526]I’m mostly surprised that this is coming from USEF and not the helmet companies. As other folks have commented, I’d kind of expect the helmet folks to come out and say “look, you do this, we can’t be sure the helmet will work as expected because we haven’t tested for that, so don’t come to us when your helmet fails.”
Also, if they are willing to make a sweeping statement about helmet cams until proven safe, can we have something similar about air vests until they are tested properly?[/QUOTE]
Whether or not glueing/sticking a camera to the outside of a helmet affects structural integrity of the helmet doesn’t even need testing - it’s a materials science question, and when you know the properties of each, you’ll know whether or not it affects anything. Unlikely.
Screwing a camera on will always affect the structural integrity.
What makes a difference is the landing - if you land on a rock, expect your helmet to crack. Similarly, if you land on a camera you’ll probably get that, too. It’s due to the focused location of the concussion, vs. landing on flat ground. But if the helmet doesn’t protect you in that situation, it shouldn’t be on the market because there are a lot of rocks/fence posts/etc out there, and you read many stories of helmets saving folks from them - so stick to one of the brands of helmet which works. Now, if I were GoPro or another helmet manufacturer I would be working on break-away cameras meant to give before helmets would and ensure the adhesive used was not corrosive to typical plastics if they haven’t already looked at that.
But I suspect helmet manufacturers aren’t speaking up because the possibility of landing on a camera is less damaging than a pointy rock, which they are designed to protect us from.
Well, bummer.
There’s goes my vicarious riding-the-upper-levels pleasure.
[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;7832433]
OR, (what a concept!) let adults decide for themselves if they want to assume the risk of wearing the foolish thing to begin with? Guaranteed liability fears are driving this somewhat ridiculous argument.[/QUOTE]
^^^ This ^^^
[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;7832433]
OR, (what a concept!) let adults decide for themselves if they want to assume the risk of wearing the foolish thing to begin with? [/QUOTE]
And here I was, thinking we’d already answered that question during the debate on top hats and hunt caps.
[QUOTE=netg;7833047]
Whether or not glueing/sticking a camera to the outside of a helmet affects structural integrity of the helmet doesn’t even need testing - it’s a materials science question, and when you know the properties of each, you’ll know whether or not it affects anything. Unlikely.
Screwing a camera on will always affect the structural integrity.
What makes a difference is the landing - if you land on a rock, expect your helmet to crack. Similarly, if you land on a camera you’ll probably get that, too. It’s due to the focused location of the concussion, vs. landing on flat ground. But if the helmet doesn’t protect you in that situation, it shouldn’t be on the market because there are a lot of rocks/fence posts/etc out there, and you read many stories of helmets saving folks from them - so stick to one of the brands of helmet which works. Now, if I were GoPro or another helmet manufacturer I would be working on break-away cameras meant to give before helmets would and ensure the adhesive used was not corrosive to typical plastics if they haven’t already looked at that…[/QUOTE]
This is the point I was trying to make. The structural integrity of the helmet being compromised by the attachment is one thing, but my real concern is having a focal point of impact on the skull, rather than dispersed, because there is an appliance sticking out. If you have the camera solidly-enough attached the the helmet that it stays in place during riding, there’s a decent chance that it is going to stay there as you fall on it. That is what I think needs to be investigated.
I am now eagerly awaiting CottonCam 
Maybe I should stick cams on my horses, too. Figure out why my mare thought it necessary to stick her legs through the fence today :mad:
The GoPro cameras have various ways to attach to a helmet. They do not need to be screwed , nor glued nor taped. They have an elastic strap that goes around the helmet and over the helmet , it holds the camera very secure. This is how I have used mine , it stays very secure . If you fell off this would in no way effect the structural integrity of the helmet . The camera would also push right off upon landing on something.
