Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Did Michael Schumacher’s helmet cam cause brain injury?

Family of Formula 1 driver reported to have blamed camera mount

When Formula 1 driver Michael Schumacher was severely injured in a skiing crash, suspicion fell on the camera mounted on his helmet as one of the causes of  damage to his brain. That possibility emerged again this weekend after a French journalist reported that Schumacher’s son believes the camera mount contributed to his father’s injuries.

Formula 1 commentator Jean-Louis Moncet, a friend of the Schumacher family, told a French radio station he had spoken to Schumacher’s son. The driver, he said, was waking up very slowly.

Moncet said: “The problem for Michael was not the hit, but the mounting of the GoPro camera that he had on his helmet that injured his brain.”

Shortly after the ski crash that put Schumacher in a coma, reports fingered the camera as a source of his injuries.

Experts from Ensa, a ski and climbing academy in Chamonix, conducted tests to find out what happened if there was another object between a ski helmet and the solid surface it hit.

“The helmet completely broke. It was in at least two parts. Ensa analysed the piece of the helmet to check the material, and all was OK,” said a source close to the investigation.

“But why did it explode on impact? Here the camera comes into question. The laboratory has been testing to see if the camera weakened the structure.”

It’s possible — some would even say likely — that Schumacher was simply extremely unfortunate to be involved in an impact that was beyond the helmet’s ability to absorb. There have been numerous incidents of cyclists dying or suffering serious in crashes in which they were wearing helmets, and helmets fracturing on impact instead of crushing to absorb shock is very common.

Conversely, mountain bikers have been using helmet-mounted cameras in mass numbers for years, as couple of minutes’ browsing YouTube shows. Crashing’s part of the game (whenever two or three mountain bikers are gathered together, they will start comparing scars) but we were unable to find any reports of serious injuries linked to camera mounts.

Shortly after Schumacher’s crash, VeloNews received a letter from a reader questioning the safety of helmet-mounted cameras. Phil said he’d asked GoPro, and been told: “Our mounts are not designed to withstand significant impact, in the event that you do significantly impact your helmet the mounting parts and adhesive would likely not stay or adversely affect the performance of the helmet.”

VeloNews tech editor Lennard Zinn asked helmet makers their opinion on the mounting of cameras.

Giro’s Eric Richter said: “We studied this issue thoroughly, including significant testing at our in-house DOME test lab with both Go-Pro and Contour units. Our mounts cause no significant additional loads for the neck nor brain rotation due to well designed breakaway features.”

Michael Grim of Specialized said: “We believe that a good GoPro mount should “break away” in an impact. We think this is the main thing. There is still risk that the camera could still cause injury, but not worse than rocks, eyewear, etc. There is always risk of injury in an accident, regardless. So, it’s always best to keep the rubber side down.

“From our experience, so far, most of the adhesive mounts do break away fine. It seems a bigger problem that cameras get knocked off and lost. So, tethering the camera may also be wise, while still providing the breakaway feature. We think it’s a bad idea to have a camera “hard mounted or bolted” to the helmet, as this may increase risk by adding leverage to rotation in an impact.”

John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.

He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.

Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.

John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.

He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.

Add new comment

29 comments

Avatar
urbane | 9 years ago
0 likes

Agreed, I wear a helmet because it has saved my head and face from WTF crashes and more dental work; this is a proper full helmet with a hard plastic outer, not crappy lids. No it is not a stupid for commuting because that's when the WTFs happened!

Mounting any small hard object on top of a helmet, be it a light or camera is not smart, especially on lids, because it will act like a knife edge to concentrate greater force on a smaller area so do more damage to the helmet and your head than typical impact material.

If you really want to risk mounting a camera on a helmet, you should use a full helmet with a strong sacrificial visor and mount it so that camera is less likely to get first impact and be punched full force into the helmet.

Avatar
Tony | 9 years ago
0 likes

For all those that can't see why having a camera strapped on your helmet could make a difference just have a check of the specification and testing of helmets. They involve hitting the helmet against a flat surface and a hemispherical anvil. The maximum impact for the anvil is lower than for a flat surface because it tends to punch a hole in the helmet. If you tested the helmet on the anvil at the flat surface impact levels it would likely give exactly the same result Ensa found. A camera will act just like an anvil for a range of non-glancing impacts and lower any protection the helmet might offer or cause premature failure.

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 9 years ago
0 likes

The extra weight of a helmet cam increases the risk of neck injury, no matter how readily the mounting will disengage in the event of an impact. And yes, there is the risk that an impact in a certain plane will force the camera through the shell of a helmet, as seems to be implied in the instance of Michael Schumacher.

Avatar
andyp | 9 years ago
0 likes

I *just about* get why people might wear a helmet cam for commuting, in case of idiot driving etc. But for sportives? for ski-ing? why??? I cannot imagine anything duller than sitting down to watch the footage of you riding/skiing something yourself. Or do you really believe that you're going to get famous because *everyone* loves watching a mediocre cyclist/skiist going down something a lot slower than someone good would?

Avatar
caaad10 | 9 years ago
0 likes

"Did Michael Schumacher’s helmet cam cause brain injury?"

....No. He was skiing and fell over, that's what caused the brain injury.

Avatar
Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes

joemmo: I'm just sick of pretty much every sportive and cycling event making plastic hats / sweat buckets compulsory - but they never mind anyone festooning objects on helmets!

Or the local cycling club that changed its rules to make helmets compulsory (someone think of the SAFETY! For SAFETIES SAKE!) on club rides, but the guy with a camera and dozens of lights (some large) on his helmet - hey no problem! (This same club also regularly would finish its club rides sprints in a public park, doing 50+ km/h right by the entrance to a children's playground).

I'm sick of the hypocrisy and the "let me stick my ignorant, uninformed beak into your business, cause I know what's good for you! Even though I wouldn't know a meta-study from my elbow..." from some sectors of the cycling community here. Too often from people who, annoyingly, are able to impose their idiotic views on others.

Sorry... this really gets on my goat.

Avatar
Joeinpoole replied to Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes
Paul J wrote:

joemmo: I'm just sick of pretty much every sportive and cycling event making plastic hats / sweat buckets compulsory - but they never mind anyone festooning objects on helmets!

Or the local cycling club that changed its rules to make helmets compulsory (someone think of the SAFETY! For SAFETIES SAKE!) on club rides, but the guy with a camera and dozens of lights (some large) on his helmet - hey no problem! (This same club also regularly would finish its club rides sprints in a public park, doing 50+ km/h right by the entrance to a children's playground).

I'm sick of the hypocrisy and the "let me stick my ignorant, uninformed beak into your business, cause I know what's good for you! Even though I wouldn't know a meta-study from my elbow..." from some sectors of the cycling community here. Too often from people who, annoyingly, are able to impose their idiotic views on others.

Sorry... this really gets on my goat.

I'm the same mate. Well said.

I literally do not understand why *anyone* wears a helmet for 'ordinary' cycling on public roads and gentle paths. It's completely absurd and there's literally not a scrap of evidence that the wearing of helmets reduces head injuries anyway.

I could just *about* understand the mentality of the helmet-wearing brigade if they also wore helmets when using the stairs in their house or when travelling in a motor vehicle ... obviously those activities carry a far higher risk of head injury than cycling. But they don't. Why not?

Avatar
2_Wheeled_Wolf replied to Joeinpoole | 9 years ago
0 likes
Joeinpoole wrote:

I'm the same mate. Well said.

I literally do not understand why *anyone* wears a helmet for 'ordinary' cycling on public roads and gentle paths. It's completely absurd and there's literally not a scrap of evidence that the wearing of helmets reduces head injuries anyway.

I could just *about* understand the mentality of the helmet-wearing brigade if they also wore helmets when using the stairs in their house or when travelling in a motor vehicle ... obviously those activities carry a far higher risk of head injury than cycling. But they don't. Why not?

Nowt wrong with wearing a action camera, I do it on every ride. I only wear a helmet to hold the camera so it captures what I see, nothing more. I do also use it when not cycling as its nice & light to carry around to record various events, after all its called a action camera for that reason.

You should have a look at my videos & see what I do, I try show cycling as how it is from my perspective whether a short ride to town to a long charity ride around London, even catching a glimpse of the Tour de France riders as they pass. Its not all about safety, no camera will stop a driver being stupid. But if its on video then it will help me out later, but most of mine are fun stuff. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlgna3Qia-bxn3y8A8tDkxiW4CGElFK0O

Avatar
JeevesBath replied to Joeinpoole | 9 years ago
0 likes
Joeinpoole wrote:
Paul J wrote:

joemmo: I'm just sick of pretty much every sportive and cycling event making plastic hats / sweat buckets compulsory - but they never mind anyone festooning objects on helmets!

Or the local cycling club that changed its rules to make helmets compulsory (someone think of the SAFETY! For SAFETIES SAKE!) on club rides, but the guy with a camera and dozens of lights (some large) on his helmet - hey no problem! (This same club also regularly would finish its club rides sprints in a public park, doing 50+ km/h right by the entrance to a children's playground).

I'm sick of the hypocrisy and the "let me stick my ignorant, uninformed beak into your business, cause I know what's good for you! Even though I wouldn't know a meta-study from my elbow..." from some sectors of the cycling community here. Too often from people who, annoyingly, are able to impose their idiotic views on others.

Sorry... this really gets on my goat.

I'm the same mate. Well said.

I literally do not understand why *anyone* wears a helmet for 'ordinary' cycling on public roads and gentle paths. It's completely absurd and there's literally not a scrap of evidence that the wearing of helmets reduces head injuries anyway.

I could just *about* understand the mentality of the helmet-wearing brigade if they also wore helmets when using the stairs in their house or when travelling in a motor vehicle ... obviously those activities carry a far higher risk of head injury than cycling. But they don't. Why not?

When I go down the stairs at home, I'm not travelling at 20mph with the risk of a diesel spill/road debris/new pot hole that wasn't there the day before. Maybe a better cyclist than me could always avoid such unknowns, but personally I am prepared to accept that one day I may get it wrong and therefore a helmet may help. Even in a relatively minor off, I would be prepared to sacrifice my helmet to save losing some scalp.
Similarly, when rock climbing outdoors, I almost always wear a helmet. It would not prevent me from being killed by a falling boulder, but small loose rocks falling from height (over which you have no control) would still make a nasty gash in your head.
Does that sufficiently explain my 'mentality'?

Avatar
wknight | 9 years ago
0 likes

When I first started motorcycling not that long ago we were always advised not to put any stickers on our helmets because it could affect them in a crash. I regularly see motorcyclists with GoPro and Bluetooth comms devices attached.

I never attach anything to either my motorcycle or bicycle helmet simply because when I hit the deck, I don't want any jolt to my head or neck caused by the object, if it doesn't remove itself or even in the process of when it comes off.

The adhesive used by GoPro is amazing and on a recent trip to the Himalayas when I came off my bike a few times the GoPro stayed in place on my handlebars.

As always personal choice but I have a friend in a wheelchair hence the extra caution. Anyway I hate the head movements from GoPro head cams which is why mine is on the handlebars. of course a bit difficult on the ski slopes

Avatar
2_Wheeled_Wolf replied to wknight | 9 years ago
0 likes

I've seen a fair few bikers going around with actin cameras on their helmets, tho I don't see many GoPro's, most seem to be Contours or Drift due to their aerodynamic shape compared to GoPro & fixed to the side.

Avatar
Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes

If you land on the camera at an angle such that the camera is driven into your helmet (directly or at an angle), it doesn't matter a jot whether or not the mount is designed to snap in the case of a more glancing impact.

Avatar
joemmo replied to Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes
Paul J wrote:

If you land on the camera at an angle such that the camera is driven into your helmet (directly or at an angle), it doesn't matter a jot whether or not the mount is designed to snap in the case of a more glancing impact.

I think you are right on this point but you are wrong to assume that the people who are vocally pro-helmet are the same people who are non critical on the risks of helmet mounted lumps, where's the evidence of this position?

Avatar
Joeinpoole | 9 years ago
0 likes

What we need is an extra-tall helmet with an integrated camera compartment at the top. Then they could test it to the exacting standards of EN1078 so that *everyone* could be really safe. That would be great.

On the other hand you could just as easily remain safe by cycling appropriately to the conditions and not keep crashing or falling off your bike.

Avatar
Recumbenteer replied to Joeinpoole | 9 years ago
0 likes
Joeinpoole wrote:

What we need is an extra-tall helmet with an integrated camera compartment at the top. Then they could test it to the exacting standards of EN1078 so that *everyone* could be really safe. That would be great....

There's a serious problem with this approach. The ideal helmet is one that gives superb protection and ventilation, but one that occupies zero volume. Unfortunately, in the real world, compromises are inevitable. A practical helmet occupies some volume and effectively increases the size of the head. This means it can impact and catch on an object that a head would have missed at the crash scene, resulting in neck injuries that wouldn't otherwise have happened. Increasing a helmet's dimensions, either by attaching something to it or by adding extra-height can have the same effect.

Avatar
Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes

Why have I noted it? Because I am perplexed by the bizarre culture in parts of the UK cycling community, where people are shocked - SHOCKED! - if you would be so reckless as to not wear a helmet, and will actually *stop* you from participating in cycling events (some club rides, sportives, etc). While at the same time they have absolutely no problem with people strapping fairly hard lumps of plastic on to those helmets, which are very likely to have a deleterious effect in the case of any impact.

Completely arse-backwards safety culture here in parts that annoys me greatly.  3

Avatar
Welsh boy replied to Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes
Paul J wrote:

Why have I noted it? Because I am perplexed by the bizarre culture in parts of the UK cycling community, where people are shocked - SHOCKED! - if you would be so reckless as to not wear a helmet, and will actually *stop* you from participating in cycling events (some club rides, sportives, etc). While at the same time they have absolutely no problem with people strapping fairly hard lumps of plastic on to those helmets, which are very likely to have a deleterious effect in the case of any impact.

Completely arse-backwards safety culture here in parts that annoys me greatly.  3

So you don't believe that a brittle plastic mount would snap or a self adhesive pad would peel away upon impact do you? As one manufacturer said: “Our mounts are not designed to withstand significant impact, in the event that you do significantly impact your helmet the mounting parts and adhesive would likely not stay or adversely affect the performance of the helmet.”

Avatar
matheson replied to Welsh boy | 9 years ago
0 likes

Seems to come down to the angle of the impact as to how much or little effect the camera & mount will have. Perhaps why "likely" is used?

Lawyers sniffing money...

Avatar
Some Fella | 9 years ago
0 likes

Is that the sound of a law suit being cobbled together?
 26

Avatar
Kadenz replied to Some Fella | 9 years ago
0 likes

No, it's just common sense.

Avatar
Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes

I've noted this in comments here before, that it's utterly fucking daft to choose to wear a helmet of concern for the safety of one's head, but then go mount a relatively hard, dense and not-exactly-featherweight object to it.

Avatar
Welsh boy replied to Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes
Paul J wrote:

I've noted this in comments here before, that it's utterly fucking daft to choose to wear a helmet of concern for the safety of one's head, but then go mount a relatively hard, dense and not-exactly-featherweight object to it.

Why is that Paul? Would you care to explain using decent language?

Avatar
truffy replied to Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes
Paul J wrote:

I've noted this in comments here before, that it's utterly fucking daft to choose to wear a helmet of concern for the safety of one's head, but then go mount a relatively hard, dense and not-exactly-featherweight object to it.

Plus, plus, plus...they make you look like a twat.

Avatar
felixcat replied to truffy | 9 years ago
0 likes
truffy wrote:

Plus, plus, plus...they make you look like a twat.

Helmets or helmet cameras?

Avatar
portec | 9 years ago
0 likes

There's also the possibility that helmet cameras (or just the presence of a camera) can encourage people to do stupider things than they would otherwise do. I'm not suggesting it was the problem in Schumacher's case; he is probably far more level-headed than most of us. But it's clearly a problem for a lot of go-pro users on you-tube.

Avatar
2_Wheeled_Wolf replied to portec | 9 years ago
0 likes
portec wrote:

There's also the possibility that helmet cameras (or just the presence of a camera) can encourage people to do stupider things than they would otherwise do. I'm not suggesting it was the problem in Schumacher's case; he is probably far more level-headed than most of us. But it's clearly a problem for a lot of go-pro users on you-tube.

So me wearing a camera on my helmet makes me do stupid things huh? That deos sound like a typical drivers attitude to me. Perhaps you like to look at this video & explain how I am going about doing stupid things when cycling in a normal manner no matter if I had a camera or not? http://youtu.be/0wm2qcgUtoQ?list=PLlgna3Qia-bxn3y8A8tDkxiW4CGElFK0O

And FYI Not everyone stupid enough to spend money on overpriced GoPro's.  3

Avatar
arowland replied to portec | 9 years ago
0 likes
portec wrote:

There's also the possibility that helmet cameras (or just the presence of a camera) can encourage people to do stupider things than they would otherwise do.

Yep, if someone points a camera at me, I can't resist pulling a silly face.

Avatar
mad_scot_rider | 9 years ago
0 likes

Here we go ...

Avatar
felixcat replied to mad_scot_rider | 9 years ago
0 likes

No, here YOU go.

Latest Comments