How do you mount your GoPro | GTAMotorcycle.com

How do you mount your GoPro

PitKit

Active member
Hi guys,

With the riding season right around the corner, I picked up a new GoPro to record some rides.

Wanted to know how everyone else is mounting their cameras to their bikes?

Thanks
 
I did the same thing and picked up an Activeon camera over the winter. It's compatible with GoPro mounts, so I ordered a GoPro suction mount. Seems to be the most versatile mount for motorsports to easily attach an action camera to gas tanks, fairings and bike tails, which I'll start with in that order.
 
used one of the brackets that came with it, a 90 degree mount for a bolt
used one of the wind screen mounting bolts, the bracket stays always on the bike
 
Have mine on my highway bar using a handlebar type mount
,
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Camera Mount.jpg
    Camera Mount.jpg
    50.8 KB · Views: 232
Any tips on how to avoid the "jello" rolling shutter effect when mounting to your bike? I've never been able to get useable footage by mounting the camera to the bike.
 
I usually have mine mounted on my helmet either side or the front this year I'm thinking of mounting it on the front since I got a new helmet, and as for on the bike maybe left side of the gas tank and the top of windscreen possibly
 
^ Having a camera mounted on the helmet is illegal btw (stupid law), a couple guys on a ride last season got ticketed for it, no idea if there was a conviction or not.
 
^ Having a camera mounted on the helmet is illegal btw (stupid law), a couple guys on a ride last season got ticketed for it, no idea if there was a conviction or not.

Wow seriously ??? No where in the helmet at all ?? I've always had mine on my helmet though and never had problems, what is it categorized as ?? I mean speeding is over the limit posted doing tricks on the street is stunting/wreck less driving but what does a camera on the helmet be categorized as ? Lol that's a total joke imo
 
Wow seriously ??? No where in the helmet at all ?? I've always had mine on my helmet though and never had problems, what is it categorized as ?? I mean speeding is over the limit posted doing tricks on the street is stunting/wreck less driving but what does a camera on the helmet be categorized as ? Lol that's a total joke imo

You can be cited for modifying the helmet which is illegal since it is a mandatory safety device. You can also get that ticket from those stupid mohawk add-ons.

I rode for a year with one on my helmet also and had no issues. Cop would need to be a dick or just want to give you a hard time to issue that but it is pretty easy to fight since you aren't permanently changing anything about the helmet.
 
^ Having a camera mounted on the helmet is illegal btw (stupid law), a couple guys on a ride last season got ticketed for it, no idea if there was a conviction or not.

I was thinking of using a helmet mount, as it works well for snowboarding.

Can you ask your friends to see what HTA infraction or ticket is for exactly.
 
You can be cited for modifying the helmet which is illegal since it is a mandatory safety device. You can also get that ticket from those stupid mohawk add-ons.

I rode for a year with one on my helmet also and had no issues. Cop would need to be a dick or just want to give you a hard time to issue that but it is pretty easy to fight since you aren't permanently changing anything about the helmet.

i agree there with your not really modifying the safety of the helmet no so I'll just keep on trucking with it :) worst case I get a ticket or hassled about it but it also good to have to show proof of hit and runs or really anything that happens it video prof so may as well have it lol :)
 
I was thinking of using a helmet mount, as it works well for snowboarding.

Can you ask your friends to see what HTA infraction or ticket is for exactly.

Below is the HTA section referring to helmets. The justification in giving that infraction would be that the outer shell is no longer smooth.

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900610

(c) have a hard, smooth outer shell lined with protective padding material or fitted with other energy absorbing material and shall be strongly attached to a strap designed to be fastened under the chin of the wearer; and
 
Ive had a camera on my helmet for 4 years, never had a problem. Although others have told stories of friends getting hassles about it.
 
Regarding the helmet issue, I know an MTO Crown Prosecutor personally so I will ask how this will be treated in court. If you're looking at subsection 1, clause c and d:

(c) have a hard, smooth outer shell lined with protective padding material or fitted with other energy absorbing material and shall be strongly attached to a strap designed to be fastened under the chin of the wearer; and
(d) be undamaged from use or misuse. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610, s. 1

It seems to be a matter of definitions...keep in mind the law is very, very literal. You have to read it word by word and not assume the meaning of what it is saying.

Does the helmet have a smooth outer SHELL? Well yes it does, the SHELL is smooth and the SHELL hasn't been modified if you are affixing something on top of it without modifying the structure of the shell such as screwing something into it. What about something like painting it? Does the extra weight and thickness of the paint cause the shell to have a different structural integrity and can it still absorb damage? Or will the paint chemicals eat away at the outer shell?

Does these things count as misuse? Likely not in the eyes of any good Justice of the Peace. Keep in mind the cop can lay a charge but that doesn't mean it's correct. The hassle is taking the time to go to court if you get charged.
 
There have been registered convictions for this infraction, look at CanLaw. Someone here posted the link to it I think two seasons ago, it included the JP's decision, and his reasoning, for registering the conviction. Keep in mind, just because your friend is a crown, doesn't mean he knows every case, nor every regulation, just as not all police officers know, every section, or the HTA. If memory serves me correctly the JP cited that the mounted camera, did indeed affect the structural integrity of the helmet, but also, cited that during a collision the camera could become dislodged, and therefore, presented the additional risk of becoming a "flying projectile"

Painting of a helmet, does not affect the integrity of the outer shell. If you also look closely somewhere in that section it states anything that "protrudes more than 5mm, which is not installed by the manufacturer" is what changes the helmet integrity. One would have to apply MANY MANY coats of paint to exceed 5mm..lol

Besides the hassle of going to court, a good crown, will simply point to the previous convictions, and as you know unless it is an appellant court hearing the case, these cases are heard by JP's with no formal legal training, so they are VERY likely to follow, what previous JP's have ruled. Going to an appeal can be pretty costly, which is why thus far no one has gone that route for a simple ticket.

As for your assertion that the law is "very very literal" and one can not "assume the meaning of what it is saying" this is an incorrect statement. The HTA in particular, is a VERY poorly worded document, with MOST regulations/sections, purposely written somewhat vaguely and open to interpretation. Crowns, Police Officers and JP's therefore, routinely, apply their interpretation of the various regulations/sections daily. However, having said that the ONLY interpretation that counts in the end is that of the presiding JP, Then if appealed, the appeal court, hearing the case.

When a JP makes a ruling, then it can be used as "case law". Then if an appeal court, (with competent jurisdiction), hears a case, and publishes it's verdict, then that case becomes "precedent setting" meaning that if quoted during a trial a lower court is bound to rule in the same manner, (unless of course the case is appealed to a higher court, again with competent jurisdiction.

Now as I have said in the past, I used to ride with a Go Pro attached to an old helmet and never, was hassled over it, (in fact I ad a "rolling conversation" with an OPP officer along the 401 as we were stuck in stop and go traffic). That doesn't mean, that because I had that conversation, and wasn't cited, that it was now "magically legal", it merely meant that either the officer, was unaware of the regulation, or he felt it was not an issue in his mind. I wouldn't advise other riders to mount their camera on their helmet, (I moved mine to the bike), and bought a special wiring harness that then meant, it was hard wired to the bike so no more running out of battery, during a ride. Does it mean just because you have a camera mounted your going to be stopped? Not at all, in fact chances are pretty slim, (just as they are if you have a single beer and drive/ride home). BUT, it does give an officer the "option" of pulling you over, in hopes of discovering other infractions. When I was a copper MANY if my impaired cases came not from erratic driving but from other infractions, (IE speeding, seat belts etc). So then the question becomes, is it worth the hassle to catch the view from your helmet as opposed to the bike? I personally dislike the "helmet videos" simply because there is way too much head movement, as opposed to bike videos.

I have a camera mounted on handlebars, (which also gave the added bonus of no potentially incriminating speedometer shots..lol), as well as rear facing camera. Both cameras were to capture if a collision occurred. The rear facing camera was added after I was rear ended in stop and go on the 401 by another bike. BUT, one also has to remember that a camera can be a double edged sword, Yes, it may capture another driver/rider doing something stupid or illegal to cause a collision, BUT, it may also capture YOU doing something, which will change the fault determination.

Regarding the helmet issue, I know an MTO Crown Prosecutor personally so I will ask how this will be treated in court. If you're looking at subsection 1, clause c and d:

(c) have a hard, smooth outer shell lined with protective padding material or fitted with other energy absorbing material and shall be strongly attached to a strap designed to be fastened under the chin of the wearer; and
(d) be undamaged from use or misuse. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610, s. 1

It seems to be a matter of definitions...keep in mind the law is very, very literal. You have to read it word by word and not assume the meaning of what it is saying.

Does the helmet have a smooth outer SHELL? Well yes it does, the SHELL is smooth and the SHELL hasn't been modified if you are affixing something on top of it without modifying the structure of the shell such as screwing something into it. What about something like painting it? Does the extra weight and thickness of the paint cause the shell to have a different structural integrity and can it still absorb damage? Or will the paint chemicals eat away at the outer shell?

Does these things count as misuse? Likely not in the eyes of any good Justice of the Peace. Keep in mind the cop can lay a charge but that doesn't mean it's correct. The hassle is taking the time to go to court if you get charged.
 
Pulled over from time to time, talking with cops and OPP, they never once brought up to me my GoPro attached to my chin.
 
I honestly believe 99% of officers:

1. Are unaware of the obscure section of the HTA;
2. Don't have the time to waste on the enforcement; or,
3. See it as a good option, (especially in the event of a single vehicle fatality), as an investigative tool.

Which translates, that 99% of officers will never bother you about it. I believe the riders, near Bobcaygeon, that were charged, were also giving the officer a bit of "attitude" when they were stopped. In that case the officer choose to use it as a "teachable moment." Best if you do get stopped be respectful, and polite, play the "uninformed" card, then your likely to walk with a "warning", just be aware that warnings are now recorded via the in vehicle terminals, so the "uniformed" card only works once..lol
 
Although it is technically illegal, most will not be bothered for having a camera mounted on a helmet.

Most run-ins I've had with cops usually resulted in "What is that thing on your helmet?" because I use a contour rather than a GoPro. I just explain it's a helmet cam in case anything were to happen, there's proof. They just say "that's cool/useful" and leave it at that.

That being said, keep in mind that 99% of the bluetooth communication devices for bikes (mounted on the helmet) out there would fall under the same charge as the a helmet cam.

Cops tend to not care about these little things unless you're doing something stupid or acting like an ***...

RE:hedo2002 - as for the helmet cam being dislodged becoming a flying projectile... Well... That would only happen in 3 scenarios (assuming you're using the provided sticky mounts rather than something stupid like double-sided tape):
1. Improperly mounted
2. Going an extremely high rate of speed
3. You went down.

I don't know what the official reason of the dangers of having a helmet cam, but the most common point I hear is that "If you go down, and your helmet cam catches on to something, you can be seriously injured". Well... I went down, hit the ground doing 35km/h, and the cam just popped right off - would assume the same would happen at a higher rate of speed.

As for a "flying projectile", well, those stupid sticker vents from Walmart probably have a better chance of flying off a car.. https://www.walmart.com/ip/Car-Side-Air-Flow-Fender-Vents-Sticker-Decor-2-Pcs-Gray/46043457

You'd basically have a better chance at getting pulled over for having a fender eliminator or loud exhaust, rather than a helmet cam or bluetooth device on your helmet. As we all know, many people on sport bikers tend to take that risk without a second thought.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom