Schumacher's helmet cam caused his injury

[TonyR]

Report in the NY Post that tests by ENSA have shown his helmet cam caused his injury. GoPro stock fell 10% on the news.

[honesty]

I'd say going skiing fast off piste and falling over caused the injury Now whether the helmet cam mount exacerbated the injury is a different matter!

[Audax67]

He wasn't going fast: the police reports said he was doing less than 20 kph about 3 or 4 metres off-piste, "a perfectly normal speed for an experienced skier under those conditions".

[[XAP]Bob]

Link and/or evidence?
http://nypost.com/2014/10/13/gopro-came ... ry-report/
Links to
http://metro.co.uk/2014/10/12/schumache ... t-4902312/

[beardy]

Hmmm,

They make it sound as if helmets do not uselessly snap in half when there isnt a GoPro fitted.

Sure sticking a Go Pro on a helmet may have an effect but I doubt it was really that significant, I still see electronic devices such as lights and cameras as added energy absorbers in a case of a crash as they are (with the exception of the batteries) more giving than rocks, concrete, kerbstones, metal road furniture etc.

[Bonefishblues]

Also here

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 93152.html

And an interesting post on another forum from nellytheelephant:

I feel reasonably well qualified to speak here! I work for a company that produces helmets for military aircrew and I'm currently at the impact testing stage of a new project!

Attaching solid things to the outside of a shell that isn't designed to take them is not great for impact attenuation. Flexible things (like visor systems) help as they bend and take away the energy, a solid camera mount would likely turn the impact into quite a high point load and concentrate the energy.

Helmet manufacturers will generally test helmets without other companies products attached, so the certification on the helmet MS was wearing would potentially be meaningless.

I say potentially as the non military world may be very different!

[Bicycler]

I've long thought this about cycle helmet cameras. It seems obvious to me that a device attached to the outside of the helmet will focus the impact whereas the helmet is meant to spread the impact force over a much wider area. That seems obvious to me without even getting into the issue of the normal effectiveness of helmets. If you believe helmets provide a useful improvement in your own safety and choose to wear one for this reason it seems rather odd to strap hard objects to the outside of it

[The Mechanic]

I've long thought this about cycle helmet cameras. It seems obvious to me that a device attached to the outside of the helmet will focus the impact whereas the helmet is meant to spread the impact force over a much wider area. That seems obvious to me without even getting into the issue of the normal effectiveness of helmets. If you believe helmets provide a useful improvement in your own safety and choose to wear one for this reason it seems rather odd to strap hard objects to the outside of it

+1 ^^^^

[700c]

I've long thought this about cycle helmet cameras. It seems obvious to me that a device attached to the outside of the helmet will focus the impact whereas the helmet is meant to spread the impact force over a much wider area. That seems obvious to me without even getting into the issue of the normal effectiveness of helmets. If you believe helmets provide a useful improvement in your own safety and choose to wear one for this reason it seems rather odd to strap hard objects to the outside of it

+1

[Lance Dopestrong]

Agreed. Attaching a solid object 1/2" from your skull while riding a bike seems daft.

[Audax67]

Gives me second thoughts about my helmet light.

[AlaninWales]

Agreed. Attaching a solid object 1/2" from your skull while riding a bike seems daft.

Only if you plan to fall onto your head. I've worn head-band attached light before and the only reason I've ever worn a 'cycle helmet' is as a convenient, stable and relatively comfortable platform on which to mount lights and/or camera, placing them high up, away from road vibration and easily aim-able.

[Tonyf33]

Surely unless they replicate the crash exactly they can never be 100% certain that the death was caused by the helmet+camera, it's just supposition based upon a single finding.
Simulate the crash with the exact same paremeters a thousand times then come back and say this what we found.

ATEOTD there's a very high likelihood if he'd not worn a helmet at all and have say chest strap camera he'd likely have survived the crash..

[Lance Dopestrong]

Agreed. Attaching a solid object 1/2" from your skull while riding a bike seems daft.

Only if you plan to fall onto your head. I've worn head-band attached light before and the only reason I've ever worn a 'cycle helmet' is as a convenient, stable and relatively comfortable platform on which to mount lights and/or camera, placing them high up, away from road vibration and easily aim-able.

I've been to a collision where a light got punched through the guys helmet into his skull. He lived, but he took a year to recover and the kindest thing you can say is that he isn't as handsome as before.

[maxcherry]

Doesn't it depend on where and how the object is attached to the helmet?