Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC Are GoPro's legal?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by Silverrr3D, Jul 25, 2016.

Tags:
  1. Hey guys, So i know this have been talked about again & again but answers i find seem to be all over the place.
    I've seen threads and news on people being fined but then winning in court for it being fine??
    I know its a grey area but as much info would be helpful as i want to get one for myself in the near future for 2 main reasons.
    1 being insurance and safety in all legal things.
    2 being recordable memories and crazy rides to show others and myself in the future.

    Cheers.
    Jono-


     
     Top
  2. Im sure someone will be along soon with the thread details, but lets just say it can be a grey area.
     
     Top
  3. The only part of GoPro use that is a grey area is whether it can be attached to your helmet or not. There is no issue with attaching them to the bike or using a chest mount
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. If you want the most informed answer to your question, you need to contact the Victorian Motorcycle Council.
    As b12mick says, the only grey area is with helmet mounts. There's only been a couple of tickets issued in Victoria. One was eventually overturned, and one went badly for the rider due to legal games. Many others use them and haven't yet been ticketed.
     
     Top
  5. Yeah, I got told I couldn't mount a "GoPro" to my helmet, so that means it's ok to mount a Contour or Sony, perhaps even a Drift.
     
     Top
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. yeah seems its all of the place.
     
     Top
  7. Legal grey area yet to be tested properly in a high enough court to form a precedent. Basically if you're caught with a "GoPro" on your helmet you get a fine for not wearing an approved helmet. Their argument is the mounting of the camera renders the helmet non compliant as it has been modified from the tested state. But so does fitting aftermarket levers to your bike, or HIDs to your car. I think some police are currently using it as a failed attitude test fine, just like they often use defect notices for the same thing with car drivers. I wear a camera on my helmet, a Sena 10c which is lower profile than a GoPro and integrates my bluetooth headset. Now while I've never been picked up on it perhaps because it doesn't immediately scream action camera. But if you decide to mount a helmet camera, if you're asked by the officer to turn it off just do it as police officers seem to have forgotten they can be legally recorded while out in public, just like any other member of the public and get quite shirty about it as has been seen in several youtube videos.
     
     Top
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. It's interesting that we have heard of people being fined, harassed, etc for having a camera attached to their helmet, but I have never heard of anyone being fined or harassed for having an intercom/Bluetooth headset attached to their helmet.
     
     Top
  9. Intercoms don't catch commissioners with their mistresses.
     
     Top
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  10. That's what I was thinking, it seems to more about the recording than the actual attachment......
     
     Top
  11. The infringements are all about the attachment voiding the standards compliance, but I'm cynical.
    If they were REALLY keen to enforcing and making it about the attachment then the same charge could be levelled at pushbike riders with cameras or cable ties on their helmets ... but I haven't heard about that happening to anyone. I have a wild suspicion about what this is really about, but that's all it is.
     
     Top
  12. This is slightly off topic, but there's another reason why I would turn off any cam if asked to.
    It can go either way, but if they aren't being recorded they may well be more inclined to give you some discretion when it comes to observed speeds and such. They have much more room to move when they are comfortable that evidence will not emerge that gets them into administrative trouble, and sometimes that's in your favour.

    And Dark Angel's point about the application of this 'rule' being selective in the extreme is important.
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
  13. I think it is more about the perception that the public have about motorcyclist with cameras. a while back, most people that had cameras were stunters and hooligans etc. So if you have a camera you'd be tarred with that antisocial brush and treated accordingly. These days, the cameras are more commonly used as dashcams. comms units will 99% never attract scrutiny unless you have failed the attitude test really, really badly.
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Remember when you used to get a couple of pennies for capturing and handing in sparrows (well it was a fair while ago) ? I reckon there should be a reward system where we can use the helmet cams to capture cagers on the phone whilst driving and hand the footage in, if it leads to a conviction you get part of the booty. It has the benefit of:
    1. Legitimises the cameras
    2. Makes bikes very visible to cagers
    3. Provides incentive for cager not to use their phones and concentrate on the roads
    4. Offsets the high cost of bike rego

    Wins all round :happy:
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 6
    • Winner Winner x 2
  15. As long as you don't mind cagers with dashcams returning the favour.

    Some research I did last year led me to believe one of the main issues with GoPro's stuck to helmet was how they were 'stuck' on, as stickers and glue are generally forbidden. So I went with the Sena Prism which only clamps on just like the intercom. If you want to be even stealthier go for the Sena 10C. I've had HWP driving behind me and they've not stopped me for it.
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. The police in Qld/NSW/Vic were acting improperly in trying to apply the AS1698 standard as an in service regulation

    After over 12 months of fighting the Vic legal battle which cost them a large sum of money then having the prosecution fail due to the AS1598 helmet standard not being freely available to the public and hence a purchaser/user could not be expected to abide by the regulation I doubt the Vic Police/Prosecution service would be wishing to go down the route of fining people

    Anyone who encounters even a hint of police objecting to the use of a camera should let the Victorian Motorcycle Council know

    It is perfectly legal to film in a public place and if police play the "attitude test" asking for one to be turned off, be polite but lodge a formal complaint against the officer

    The approval of UNECE 22.05 helmets has also changed the picture considerably and so there are different considerations for those using UNECE helmets compared to AS1698 helmets

    The UNECE 22.05 standard does not have the schoolboy anti competitive "informative" clause 9f
    (f) No attachments should be made to the helmet except those recommended by the helmet manufacturer.
    It should be noted that no manufacturer is going to recommend a device manufactured by a competitor

    UNECE clause 6.3. states

    "No component or device may be fitted to or incorporated in the protective helmet unless it is designed in such a way that it will not cause injury and that, when it is fitted to or incorporated in the protective helmet, the helmet still complies with the requirements of this Regulation."

    With UNECE helmets basically the Police would have to be able to prove the component or device fitted would cause injury and the helmet failed to comply with the standard. A very much more difficult case for them to run in a court and would cost a large sum of money in testing to prove.

    Where there were attempts to fine UNECE helmet users then there would also be questions for the manufacturer of the device over whether they tested it to ensure it was safe and also questions for the ACCC over whether devices being allowed for sale were "fit for purpose".


    As for GoPro camera's, well they are not very aerodynamic and look rather silly so some of the other brands would be far better
     
     Top
    • Informative Informative x 2
  17. I don't think the Qld Police are booking anyone anymore considering they are now wearing cameras themselves. They use them to catch people on their mobiles. I was riding behind one the other day and he was all over the road because he kept turning his head to capture a shot of the driver. I should have booked him

    I was surprised that the Vic case didn't use the argument that how can the Qld Police use them but Vic's can't under a NATIONAL standard?

    I tend to agree with others. The GoPro screams "Look at Me" and is asking for trouble. There are much more discreet ones on the market that do the job.
     
     Top
  18. I consider the "look at me" thing to have safety uses. Drivers, anecdotally at least, seem to notice the camera and suddenly change their behaviour since they now know they're being recorded.
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. it seems po-lice in NSW are allowed to use their mobile phones when on duty and driving.

    would a non-adhesive chinmount get around the 'mount glued to helmet' issue? I have seen a pic of a mount for attaching a GP to a cap but struggling to locate it. there must be something other than a chest or fixed (to bike) mount to allow for field of view recording.
     
     Top
  20. I tried to build what I called a "predator mount" ie looking over my shoulder like a Predator's plasma caster. I couldn't get it secure enough to be worth using. It just flapped around too much.
     
     Top