Helmet camera may have caused injury.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

screenman

Legendary Member
Michael Schumacher skiing crash: did helmet camera cause head injuries?
Investigators are exploring the theory that Michael Schumacher's helmet camera could have caused the helmet to shatter, leading to serious head injuries
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mo...sh-did-helmet-camera-cause-head-injuries.html

How would this fare for those of us who use them, in an accident?

Well nobody would wear a helmet then strap a camera to it surely. Think of the extra rotational forces.
 

MikeW-71

Veteran
Location
Carlisle
Depends how firmly the camera is attached and whether the mount has any "give" in it. Depends on the camera and the mount, but, yes it could add to rotational forces on the head, similar to the risks of a pointy TT helmet.
 

Cycling Dan

Cycle Crazy
We can guess and put forward theories all we want with little evidence. Lets leave it up to the investigators to find out what actually happened. The camera may not have been involved at all for all we know.
 
OP
OP
classic33

classic33

Leg End Member
Assuming they do find the camera mounted on the helmet to be in someway to blame, will it affect the way any claims are treated in future, if you're involved in an accident whilst wearing one.

I got the link from Dogcam.
 

shouldbeinbed

Rollin' along
Location
Manchester way
2935404 said:
The article, which may of course be absolute nonsense, says that the camera was undamaged. That suggests that it would not be likely to have been a major impact point.
Agree its all speculation, but Physics of energy transfer would fit. Think karate chopping a pile of bricks or the passage of energy through newtons balls (@fnarr) & same way a collar bone can break when your outstretched hand hits the ground
 
I'm reading the article and not seeing rotational forces anywhere in there. It reads more that the camera is suspected to have been the impact point and concentrated the force onto a small part of the helmet acting like a chisel on it.

.... as would be the case with a small protruding rock?

The problem here is that once again the helmet has shattered as opposed to compressing, and failed in it's basic function.

With this high profile, the helmet companies are desperate to find a way of getting round this basic fact.
 

screenman

Legendary Member
Does a helmet absorb some shock then break or just break?
 
OP
OP
classic33

classic33

Leg End Member
Its not so much about helmets, more about the fact that the camera being worn may have caused the injury.
If we assume thats the case, or its proved, will the use of a helmet camera be used as a get out clause/reduce any compesation, if we're involved in an incident whilst wearing one?
 

buggi

Bird Saviour
Location
Solihull
please tell me what the difference between hitting the camera or hitting a protruding pointy rock? The rock is harder surely anyway. The helmet failed. end of. No company wants to admit they sell shoot. They will try anything to save their reputation .
 
Its not so much about helmets, more about the fact that the camera being worn may have caused the injury.
If we assume thats the case, or its proved, will the use of a helmet camera be used as a get out clause/reduce any compesation, if we're involved in an incident whilst wearing one?

... or is the helmet unable to withstand a point impact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom