Hi,
Can anyone recommend a good camera for motorcycle helmets that’s sub $200? Using this mainly for commute and insurance purposes if there’s ever a need.
Thanks.
Motorcycle Helmet Camera Suggestions
xyee on 31/03/2018 - 18:45
Comments
I agree here. Go for a side mounted, inline type cams. I see riders out there with Go-Pros mounted to the top of their helmets, and apart from looking like clowns, it's an extension to the top of the helmet. Easy to forget about being 6 inches taller.
I have both the Contour Roam and an older Contour GPS model. I recently updated and got the Sony HDR-AS50. Much better picture quality, lighter and not as much wind noise in the video. Has image-stabilisation and a heap of features over the Contour range. It was on special when I got it for about $179 and it's a brilliant camera in this price range.
Thanks pegaxs. Yeah, I’m more inclined to the in-line or barrel ones; definitely not the likes of Go-pros. I’ll look into the Sony. Cheers.
Thanks AlphaBravo. Just did a search on eBay and they’re out of my price range and most are from overseas.
Well, when you're laying there, dying of a kidney/heart/liver/lung disease and need a new organ, you can thank a motorcycle rider next time you see them.
Motorcycle riding would be a lot safer if it wasn’t for arsehat, Snapchatting, social influencer car drivers…
Burnertoasty, that is a ridiculous comment…
It’s not at all. The statistics are abisimal.
http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/statistics/summaries/m…
A motorcycle is 35 times more dangeours than a car, statistically. Commute on a motorcycle, and that’s what you’ll become, a statistic.
Burnertoasty, I am well aware of the statistics.
I nearly lost a foot in an accident over 30 years ago yet that hasn't stopped me from enjoying my passion for motorcycles.
My objection is to your flippant suggestion. Many people have no choice but to use a motorcycle as a primary means of commuting.
@StingyBritches: There is nothing flippant about my suggestion: if you commute on a motorcycle, you are nuts. The organ donor comment wasn’t a joke, that’s what ER staff call motorcyclists. I don’t see any plausible argument where people don’t have a choice not to commute on a motorcycle. You can use a car or public transport for much safer transportation.
@Burnertoasty:
"if you commute on a motorcycle, you are nuts." <- and you reckon you are not being flippant?
Oh well, that's your opinion and you now have mine…Woah there tiger. Not "statistics"!!! Well, that's case closed!
How did you come at the "35 times more dangerous" calculation?
The problem with these road statistics is that they don’t take into account the "cause" of the accident, only the end result, ie: death/injury. What is NOT noted in these statistics is the number of outside factors, ie: car drivers/road conditions that is not taken into account.
I would argue that a motorcycle is no more dangerous than a car. The problem is when that motorcycle interacts with its environment that is becomes an issue. The other issue is when the environment interacts with the motorcycle, that is a far greater issue, ie: ignorant/inattentive/distracted car drivers running lights/signs/not indicating/etc.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the time or the patience to explain why your view of this is wrong, as I have already done it numerous times in the past on this forum,
and if I find the link to it, I will post it.ROFL! :D Found one of them, and it seems like your annual review of motorcycle riding was due. You were wrong then and you're still wrong now. Everything that was said in that post has been echoed here. Please don’t make me maths these statistics again this year…While I agree that motorcycle riding is inherently more dangerous, what makes it dangerous is lack of knowledge, lack of observational skills, lack of riding skills, lack of other drivers awareness, lack of appreciation of how dangerous riding a motorcycle can be, it is not the motorcycle itself that is dangerous, but the manner in which it is used.
Under your logic, I cant find any deaths for trucks drivers, so are cars 35 times more dangerous than trucks?
To quote TAC:
In the last 10 years, more than 420 motorcycle riders and pillion passengers have lost their lives
In the last 10 years, 444 pedestrians lost their lives on Victorian roadsSo… what you're saying is, that I shouldn’t leave the house to do anything other than drive a car? According to "statistics", its a higher probability that I will be killed as a pedestrian than as a motorcyclist?
From TAC on motorcyclist fatalities: (NOTE: motorcycle stats. are made up of "rider AND pillion", where as car is "driver" with a separate section for passengers.)
Motorcyclist 56(2016) 38(2017) -18(Change) -32%(% Change)
Do you want me to start on gender? Because it appears, using your logic, that the mere ownership of a penis has us guys out numbering women at almost 3:1 in these statistics. Maybe it's not the bikes that's unsafe, it's having a penis? That is more likely, considering ALL motorcyclists that lost their lives last year were male. Motorcycles didn’t kill any women, sooooo, I'm kinda thinking the bike has nothing to do with it… You know, "statistics" considered, and all…
@pegaxs: It’s astounding that you can’t see that the cause doesn’t matter. Death is death, you are much more likely to die on a motorcycle, the cause is irrelevant
Dude, let it go. You got owned last time you got on this high horse. I don’t understand what your agenda is. Just come out and say it.
People who ride motorcycles already KNOW that it is more dangerous than cars. That's part of the reason we do it. No one is disputing that. What we are disputing is your self-righteous running diatribe on the subject and the spreading of misinformation.
Go read the old thread I posted above and read it again where I break open your garbage theory.
What you should be doing is thanking motorcyclists, because if it was not for us, many people wouldn’t get organ transplants.
Anyway, I'm leaving this alone. You're not going to convince anyone to stop riding by regurgitating the rhetoric over and over any more that I am going to convince you that your commentary is wrong, invalid and unfounded and based on what way you want to read statistics.
Instead of hijacking every motorcycle related thread with your incorrect and lazily researched propaganda, how about doing some real research and post your own thread about it. More to the point, why don’t you do something about helping pedestrians and other road users stay alive and start an awareness campaign. Instead of damning motorcycle riders, maybe elevate their existence and inform other road users to be more respectful of pedestrians and cyclists.
@pegaxs: You’re delusional buddy, no one owned me, you simply can’t argue with the statistics. Be as pig headed as you want, and think you’re right, but those figures don’t lie, you are wrong.
@Burnertoasty:
Might as well give up, pegaxs. Ignorance is ignorance.
Seems to me that Burnertoasty just plain hates motorcycles for whatever reason.
I ride a motorcycle and accept the risks and will continue to enjoy the unique joy that comes from riding.@StingyBritches: I don’t hate motorcycles, I understand the joys of riding them, and I understand why people use them occasionally for pleasure as a calculated risk, but commuting? That’s just plain crazy.
@Burnertoasty:
Okay. This is my last comment…"people use them occasionally for pleasure as a calculated risk" I have never gone out thinking I am talking a risk. However, I am aware I need to consider factors such as road/weather conditions and drivers who never see motorcycles.
"commuting? That’s just plain crazy." Sigh. Whilst I am tempted to say something else, I will merely say that is YOUR opinion. When I commuted I had no choice and did it for nearly fifteen years, so using your argument I should have been admitted to an insane asylum?
(Drops mike. Walks away)
Already proved last time that the stats are inconclusive. Read the old post I linked too. The maths is in up there, somewhere.
Here it is in case you missed it last time…
And on that note, I did some research and some maths. 2015, 30 people died on bikes and 179 died in cars in Victoria. There is an estimated 500,000 motorcycle riders in Victoria. That equated to 0.006% of motorcycle riders were killed in 2015. The population of Victoria is about 5,700,000. Of that, let's say a 1/4 are under the driving age, don't hold a license or who don't use cars at all (eg: hipsters on single speed bicycles.). That leaves about 4,200,000 potential drivers/passengers. Let's subtract riders from that, cause, lets face it, you can't drive a car and ride a bike at the same time. So, about 3.7million drivers in Victoria. 179 deaths in cars equates to about 0.005% of all drivers died. So, your chances of being killed while riding in Victoria on a motorcycle, "statistical speaking" is about 0.001% greater.
And there is no problem saying you hate motorcycles and/motorcyclists. If you had a bad experience with one, that’s fine. If you are stuck in traffic and you see is lane filtering to the front and that rustles your Jimmies, then that’s ok too, but at least be honest and upfront about why you have this view and back it up with actual facts. (Hint: stats are not facts. They are just data that can be manipulated to suit your agenda. ie: all motorcycle riders killed last year were male. All males have a penis, therefore, having a penis kills motorcycle riders… See how silly statistics are if you can read anything into them?)
A motorcycle is 35 times more dangeours than a car
How did you calculate 35 times more dangerous? I would like to see that data. Sounds like you are reading directly off a "anti-motorcycling" script sheet.
but using it as your primary means of transport is nuts
if you commute on a motorcycle, you are nuts
but commuting? That’s just plain crazy.How do you draw a correlation with riding a motorcycle to a mental illness? Why isnt it "car drivers are killing motorcycle riders hand over fist. Car drivers are crazy."
Not my opinion
This is totally your "opinion" and nothing of what you say is based on any facts. You make assumptions based on reading the data how you want to read it and take no consideration on comparing any of the data that is supplied. This is called "cherry picking".
No one is doubting that motorcycle riding comes with an inherent risk. All motorcyclists knowledge this. But, you have a set hatred for motorcycling, and I, and others would like to know what your "true" agenda is with regards to continually pushing this anti-motorcycle garbage. If you can at least clear that up, then maybe people will accept more from your counter point of the topic…
@pegaxs: This is not a personal attack. I don't hate motorcycles, I've ridden motorcycles many times. It's pretty sad that you think that because I am stating a solid fact about the dangers of commuting on a motorcycle, that I have some kind of agenda. I don't. I'm just saying that it's stupid to commute on a motorcycle because they are so dangerous.
It’s not a “solid fact”. All you are doing is cherry picking data, that I have since debunked numerous times, to suit some sort of anti-motorcycle agenda.
If you have no agenda, then why comment at all? If not for stirring/trolling, what points do your biased comments contribute?
Anyway, it’s all become way off topic and you’re only replying for the sake of trolling and adding nothing to the conversation. I have asked several questions to help clear your position and you are reluctant to address those issues, so, for that reason, I’m done…
There is no Cherry Picking. That is straight from the TAC. It doesn't get more clear cut than that. There is no anti-motorcycle agenda. Maybe considering your own mortality is too much, so you choose to 'debunk' cold, hard data.
Mod: Edited to remove inflammatory statement.
I have asked several questions to help clear your position and you are reluctant to address those issues, so, for that reason, I’m done…
Just in case you missed it…
I have to agree with this. With the recent increase in number of cars the number of idiots and impatient drivers increases exponentially in peak hour traffic. I've given up commuting after 4 accidents. Just last week I witnessed a red light runner wiped out a scooter. The old bugger was extremely lucky (he was wearing shorts & a sport jacket!) to have avoided injuries. The lady in the black Merc reckoned the lights were amber…
Technically illegal to attach a camera to the helmet as you are changing the design and dynamics of it, as tested and authorised under the Australian Design Rules.
Technically NOT illegal. This was proven in a case in Victoria recently where by the Australian Design Rules apply to the manufacturer and not the end user.
They are legal to use in WA, Qld, ACT, Vic. with SA and NSW (NT and Tas I could find no info on) lagging behind, as always, due to “more time required for testing.” All other states have gone on to say that they are an invaluable safety feature in both cycling and motorcycling, so much so that most police officers on motorcycles now use these cameras.
So, if you have proof that these cameras are “illegal” I would love to see the source of that comment.
No, TECHNICALLY it is still illegal, but the police interpret it different ways according to state, and the courts interpretation is questionable, especially the Victorian case you cite. There is supposed to be some consistency between the states, but there isn't. The legislation is quite badly written, but it essentially says "an approved motor bike helmet must comply with standard AS/NZS 1698". The approval is given to a batch of helmets of a particular design after some are tested to destruction. If you change the design, you are required to resubmit samples for further testing to destruction before the new design is approved. It was argued that adding a new piece changed the design, therefore the approval no longer applied. Here is where it got perverted: In the Victorian case the defendant appealed HIS conviction (not the whole matter of changing design/retesting). They submitted that because VicRoads didn't send him a copy of the design rules, and it was too hard to find, that he was not required to follow the rules! Unbelievably the judge sided with him. There is a tenet at law that ignorance of the law is no excuse, you are presumed to know the law — the burden of knowing is on you and you can't claim ignorance as a defence. Finding a copy of the ADRs shouldn't be so hard, it is in law libraries and is available online like anything else these days, like that even matters. It's almost like you could claim you didn't know you couldn't murder your wife because the government didn't send you some paperwork telling you you couldn't, or you don't need to pay your rego because VicRoads didn't send you a copy of the relevant law and regs etc… Quite absurd really, but HE got away with his case in HIS circumstances. It was dismissed on appeal on this technicality. Although the case can be considered an example of a precedent being set, the matter of whether changing the helmet construction/design was or wasn't legal wasn't argued fully or ultimately determined. This is where the kerfuffle lies. Although the ADRs do apply to the manufacturer, it doesn't give the end user the right to alter it and still be in compliance. There are plenty of idiots out there that reckon they can fit any manner of lights to their car (including blue lights in their headlights) or make whatever mechanical changes they like because it looks cool. This is despite there being specific laws saying they can't do it. The car was manufactured to comply with the ADRs, but they modified it to NOT comply. So who is responsible now? The manufacturer or the end user? Is this judge saying it is now OK for the end user to ignore ADRs and make whatever changes he likes? To be fair, it seems like the police are only targeting "modifications", though they could be pedantic and prosecute you because the helmet is not in pristine condition any more, like when you first bought it (we're talking dirty/worn/unreadable compliance labels here, not defective straps and fasteners, etc).
The claim of them being illegal is based on most states still having on their law books a statute making it illegal. They have not changed the wording of the law based on this case or a particular state's policy to allow it, nor has it been specifically tested in court (aside from the peripheral discussion in the Victorian case). The various agencies are deciding how they will interpret the law despite not having a definition contained in the legislation. The Victorian case everyone cites really doesn't apply to everyone, just one person that claimed he wasn't served a copy of the rules. The news outlets reported it poorly and simplistically like they always do, and everyone took it to mean the offence wasn't an offence any more. That's why I started with the carefully worded "Technically…", although in practice there is so much confusion, everyone ignores it and treats it like it's legal. Like, technically, you are supposed to walk on the left side of the footpath, but nobody really cares, and you're not going to get prosecuted if you don't. That still doesn't make it legal.
For the most part I agree with you, I think they are a good idea, but the legislation and its interpretation and application around the country is inconsistent, haphazard and contradictory, and a cluster#$ck. Even the motoring bodies and lawyers are confused. There are some good articles and arguments outlining it here, highlighting individual state issues:
https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/driver-training-a…
http://www.mccofnsw.org.au/a/232.html
https://www.motorcyclelife.com.au/motorcycling-australia-ban…
https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2016/02/gopro-on-motorcycle-he…
https://netrider.net.au/threads/helmet-camera-laws.232244/Thanks for the read and the links. But a few problems;
The NRMA link was broken.
The MCC of NSW site is 2 years out of date and doesn’t quote any legislation. Just goes on to say "why it's stupid" (and we already know that.)
The MCL link was broken (And is about road racing, not public road use.)
The LH link was broken (and appears to be from over 2 years ago??)
The NR link is to another forum that is 2 years old with more of the same guesswork.While your post was informative, it was no more conclusive than doing a Google search. I am looking for Police, Government or law sites that specifically state that "Helmet cameras are illegal." of which I can find none. So, "technically", it's not illegal.
ADR and AS guidelines are for the purpose of manufacture and setting a minimum standard. This is a compliance issue at point of sale, not 3 or 4 years down the track for end users to adhere to. It is not an ongoing system of checks, because if it were, then inspecting your helmet would be a part of registration checks for example.
Anyway, use up your negs on my posts if it makes you feel better, but at the end of the day, negging me doesn’t make you right. Until there is clear legislation on the matter, currently of which there is none, it is misinformative to label it as illegal when you cannot produce the required information to state that this is the case. Quoting tabloid, sensationalising/clickbaity websites like "LifeHacker" is a bottom of the barrel site to grab any legal information from at the best of times. Why not Herald Sun or News.com.au as basis for legal arguments??
So, again, I will ask, do you have any "legal/government/policing" source to say unequivocally that the ownership, use and/or mounting of a camera on a motorcyclists helmet is indeed "illegal". Not technically, but "factually" illegal?
In case you are bored, and you like reading links, here is one from 2018 from Maurice Blackburn Lawyers that also has some vague references to the recent law changes regarding motorcycle helmets and lane filtering…
@pegaxs: I'm not the one negging you. I actually said I agree with much of your position. We just seem to have a misunderstanding about the term "technically". I have read the Maurice Blackburn blog.
The links all work for me, they basically just highlight these inconsistencies and provide examples of technical breaches, not legal arguments. Much show the confusion of the common man and their fears of rules spilling over from motor sport to road use for example. If you want me to produce some legislation that says "thou shalt not…. xxx", I won't/can't. It is just that when you read the requirements, it can be argued (admittedly either way) that you are in breach. We agree these requirements are pretty ridiculous, hence my statement of "technically" which I have used over and over from the start. Never "factually". Much like the example of visors requiring a label with an authorisation mark — to use it you must remove the wrapper, but doing so may leave you open to to technically have committed a breach by removing the label.
Victoria Police obviously felt the circumstances were in breach, and issued an infringement. The matter was reviewed, and supervisors and prosecutions personnel agreed there was a case to answer. Legal opinions were sought prior to being contested in the County Court. Plenty of educated and experienced professional legal personnel were involved and held that opinion. Their opinion wasn't necessarily wrong, they just didn't win the case. Like when you know someone committed murder, but they aren't convicted because of a technical matter (e.g. weren't cautioned). They were acquitted, not found innocent. They still committed the offence. Think OJ Simpson.
Maurice Blackburn state on their blog in your link that they welcome the changes to the rules, because they weren't clear, consistent or practical, and in some cases impossible to comply with. This clearly indicates they believe there exists rules that need to be followed by the end user (whether this obedience was intended or not). This leads to my statement that you could find yourself in breach of a rule that is impossible to comply with, hence being technically illegal. The judiciary is there hopefully to introduce sense to the whole process, but overriding convictions one at a time isn't the right answer. The legislation needed to be rewritten, which is what's happening. I applaud that and I am keen to see it, removing any doubt that wearing cameras is lawful. I too will be wearing a helmet cam in future.
I'm on your side. We are just thrashing about on my use of "technically" :).
TL;DR…
This thread has been derailed far too much as it is already. It was asking about what camera was a good buy for mounting to a helmet, not that motorcycles are dangerous or if it was legal or not to mount the camera once purchased.
As I said to Burner above, while there is no on topic conversation and no reference to actual facts, I’m going to give this thread a big pass from here on out.
Once I can find concrete legislation from the correct source regarding the legality of camera mounting relating to helmets, I’ll make a post about it.
I don't use a helmet cam, instead I bought a CB030A Bike DVR (2-Channel Drive Recorder) in 2013 for US$245 (incl. shipping).
It is hard wired and has a front and back camera. So never a problem with empty batteries, a common problem for helmet cams. It starts recording when you switch the bike on. It has GPS and the app which comes with it shows your route (location, time, and speed) on Google Maps. The record resolution is not high, but it does the job. It's not very good at night.
They were hard to find back in 2013 and I ended up contacting a seller in Taiwan directly. Perhaps not budget enough for you, but it has a lot of advantages over a helmet cam (set and forget, and it is legal!). I still use it daily. I put a 32GB SD card in the recorder which means I can record about a week commuting (about 50MB/min judging the file sizes). I witnessed a few accidents and passed on the footage.
This Motorcycle-Action-Video-Camera looks similar to my Bike DVR, but is more budget. No GPS feature it seems. There are a few other ones on eBay.
Cheers for the info. However, I’m not looking at getting something hardwired at the moment. Good to know though.
I got an SJ4000 a few years back that came with a mounting kit for <$100. Just put it on as a chin mount and forget it's there. Battery only lasts 90 mins though, so you'll need to recharge frequently if using it on regular commutes.
Hey mate, even I am looking for the same thing. What did you end up getting?
Unless you go a cheapie from ebay - Contour Roam. one on/off switch makes it easy to use. There are a few models and some good deals on ebay.