Go Pro camera linked to Michael Schumacher injury

[VITE1]

GoPro Shares Tumble October 13 - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/gopro-shares-tumble-october-13-2014-10)

GoPro shares are getting crushed following a report that said a GoPro camera may have been responsible for the seriousness of the skiing accident involving Formula One driver Michael Schumacher.
In early trade on Monday, shares of GoPro were down as much as 10% amid another day of broad market weakness, with the Nasdaq losing the most ground among the major averages.

According to Eurosport, French F1 commentator Jean-Louis Moncet told radio station Europe 1 that the problem for Schumacher was not his fall but the GoPro camera he had mounted to his helmet.

Per Yahoo's report: "'The problem for Michael was not the hit, but the mounting of the Go-Pro camera that he had on his helmet that injured his brain,' Moncet explained to the radio station."

This is not the first time that a mounted camera has been pegged as possibly increasing the severity of Schumacher's injury, but it appears to be the first time GoPro was mentioned by name.

A report in The Telegraph from back in February, shortly after Schumacher's accident, said that Schumacher's helmet smashed after his fall, but that the camera mounted to his helmet did not.

That report said experts were exploring whether "a solid object between a helmet colliding with a rock would weaken the structure."

From The Telegraph:

Experts from ENSA, the world-renowned ski and climbing academy in the French ski resort of Chamonix, have conducted tests to determine whether the presence of a solid object between a helmet colliding with a rock would weaken the structure.

The helmet smashed – but the camera he had attached to it, in order to record him and his son skiing, was undamaged. The footage, audio and visual, has provided police with crucial information about the crash.

"The helmet completely broke. It was in at least two parts. ENSA analyzed 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."

Schumacher, a seven-time world champion, is still recovering from his injuries, sustained in December.

Schumacher emerged from a medically induced coma in June.



Read more: GoPro Shares Tumble October 13 - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/gopro-shares-tumble-october-13-2014-10#ixzz3G2r5iOyL)

[Aerovette]

GoPro Shares Tumble October 13 - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/gopro-shares-tumble-october-13-2014-10)

I don't agree with this BS. It is like sueing because an airbag did not deploy. The "solution" is to not have an accident.

If you never hit anything, you don't even need a helmet. It is a "just in case" device. People don't ski directly in to trees because they feel the helmet will save them.

It was an accident. Just an accident. Sonny Bono didn't have a GoPro and is just as dead.

Does there ALWAYS have to be someone ELSE to blame?

[Hoog]

It was an accident. Just an accident. Sonny Bono didn't have a GoPro and is just as dead.


He's even more dead.

They say the GoPro had an effect, but also that it was undamaged. So did the camera hit the rock, or not? Don't those things mount with a suction cup?

[DAB]

if the helmet was not designed to have a camera attached to it then it wouldn't be able to properly protect you.

were holes drilled for the mount? did it focus the impact energy into a smaller area?

[Aerovette]

He's even more dead.

They say the GoPro had an effect, but also that it was undamaged. So did the camera hit the rock, or not? Don't those things mount with a suction cup?

Suction or adhesive backed mount.

I see a new warning label in the near future.

[Cybercowboy]

OK, let's say he hit a rock without wearing the camera, and the rock had a camera-shaped protrusion. Would they blame the accident on the protrusion or the fact that the helmet split? This is stupid.

[Aerovette]

OK, let's say he hit a rock without wearing the camera, and the rock had a camera-shaped protrusion. Would they blame the accident on the protrusion or the fact that the helmet split? This is stupid.

Yes, Rock formations that can penetrate a helmet MUST be removed...immediately. In fact, we need to stop paying so much attention to the ebola threat and start reshaping rocks in case anyone falls and hits one.

[m and t's77]

We have a GoPro for my son and it sides into mounting that is held on by tape.The case that you put the camera in is nearly bulletproof.If anyone should take the blame make it 3M that tape is not budging.

http://mycamera.co.za/images/detailed/8/gopro_flat_adhesive_mounts_1.jpg

[DAB]

can't sue a rock, but you can sue a company with deep pockets.

[Y2Kvert4me]

Yes, Rock formations that can penetrate a helmet MUST be removed...immediately. In fact, we need to stop paying so much attention to the ebola threat and start reshaping rocks in case anyone falls and hits one.I can understand your point, but at the same time, is this really "blame", or just an interesting discovery, and a ridiculously easy measure people can choose to decrease their risk?


For example...I remember when there was a vendor selling laser cut metal flag emblems for the airbag cover on Corvette steering wheels. It doesn't take much of a genius to understand that may not be the smartest place to affix a thin, sharp piece of metal.
It's the same principle...Won't be a problem unless the airbag deploys, right?

[Nemesis]

Does there ALWAYS have to be someone ELSE to blame?

If it is determined that the camera and/or the mount compromised the function of the helmet, then yes. That is the kind of testing that should have been done by the company before manufacturing and selling such a mount.

[Aerovette]

If it is determined that the camera and/or the mount compromised the function of the helmet, then yes. That is the kind of testing that should have been done by the company before manufacturing and selling such a mount.

The manufacturer of the Go Pro cannot possibly address every conceivable attachment point a user might place a camera.

I had one attached to the nose of a knee board. Had it hit me in the face, I would have to say tough chit. I'm the one that stuck it there.

Was he forced to wear the camera?

[VatorMan]

If it is determined that the camera and/or the mount compromised the function of the helmet, then yes. That is the kind of testing that should have been done by the company before manufacturing and selling such a mount.

You must have the Johnny Cochran firm on retainer.

[Nemesis]

The manufacturer of the Go Pro cannot possibly address every conceivable attachment point a user might place a camera.

I had one attached to the nose of a knee board. Had it hit me in the face, I would have to say tough chit. I'm the one that stuck it there.

Was he forced to wear the camera?

Your comparison would hold water if he had mounted the camera on his ski, not a piece of safety equipment as directed.

You're right though. There's no possible way the manufacturer could have conceived their camera mounts being affixed to one's helmet...
http://shop.gopro.com/mounts/helmet-front-mount/AHFMT-001.html#/start=1

[Aerovette]

Your comparison would hold water if he had mounted the camera on his ski, not a piece of safety equipment as directed.

You're right though. There's no possible way the manufacturer could have conceived their camera mounts being affixed to one's helmet...
http://shop.gopro.com/mounts/helmet-front-mount/AHFMT-001.html#/start=1

You may have missed my point. I was saying if the manufacturer is going to be held liable, then they would have to eliminate that liability with an insane amount of warnings that would have to cover all possible applications.

I equate it to a motocrosser sueing Yamaha because he was paralyzed doing a backflip. If you don't fall, you have no suit.

If the Camera made him fall....completely different story.

[Cybercowboy]

Your comparison would hold water if he had mounted the camera on his ski, not a piece of safety equipment as directed.

You're right though. There's no possible way the manufacturer could have conceived their camera mounts being affixed to one's helmet...
http://shop.gopro.com/mounts/helmet-front-mount/AHFMT-001.html#/start=1

Skiing is an inherently dangerous activity. Even if every piece of safety equipment works perfectly, in perfect harmony, you can still break your neck or find some other interesting way to kill yourself, especially if you ski in the more rugged ungroomed areas that apparently Mr. Schumacher was skiing in.

[Nemesis]

You may have missed my point. I was saying if the manufacturer is going to be held liable, then they would have to eliminate that liability with an insane amount of warnings that would have to cover all possible applications.

I equate it to a motocrosser suing Yamaha because he was paralyzed doing a backflip. If you don't fall, you have no suit.

If the Camera made him fall....completely different story.

If you don't fall, you can make a lot of money riding a bike. Even those at the top of the sport fall, so that points moot. Falls happen and nobodys perfect. That's why testing needs to be done. That's why you wear a helmet.

Also, nobody is disputing the fall. The camera didn't cause the fall. The dispute regards the compromised function of the helmet.

The simple fact is that if they want to sell such an item, they should test for such incidents.

[Nemesis]

Skiing is an inherently dangerous activity. Even if every piece of safety equipment works perfectly, in perfect harmony, you can still break your neck or find some other interesting way to kill yourself, especially if you ski in the more rugged ungroomed areas that apparently Mr. Schumacher was skiing in.

Yeah, I get that. I've spent a lot of time on the mountain and have incurred many injuries over the years.

[sanchez]

The 52 week low for the stock is like $28. It's currently around $76. It's down a little but not getting crushed. If you bought last year, you are still a smiling mother****er.

This will all blow over.

We re-elected Obama and co months after a US ambassador was dragged dead through the streets of Benghazi. Do you really think the general public will give a **** about schuey?

Any lawsuit will take years if not decades to work its way throughout he legal system.

[Mike Mercury]

if the manufacturer is going to be held liable, then they would have to eliminate that liability with... insane... warnings


http://cdn.thegloss.com/files/2011/01/qtips.jpg
"WARNING: Do Not Put Swab In Ear Canal"
serious

what's next, a warning on Charmin "do not wipe azz" ?

[Aerovette]

If you don't fall, you can make a lot of money riding a bike. Even those at the top of the sport fall, so that points moot. Falls happen and nobodys perfect. That's why testing needs to be done. That's why you wear a helmet.

Also, nobody is disputing the fall. The camera didn't cause the fall. The dispute regards the compromised function of the helmet.

The simple fact is that if they want to sell such an item, they should test for such incidents.

I disagree. Sorry. If I choose to attach a camera to my helmet, anything that happens as a result of that attachment is my responsibility.

It is a promoted use for the camera, but certainly not a required use or its only use. This is all about lawyers and not about applications or adhesives, or placement, or compromised safety.

Unless of course we can sue Motorola because we were texting when we tripped and fell. I mean they do promote texting, right. It is a selling point of the phone.

The camera did not cause the fall and therefore the camera company should not be liable.

Suppose he fell on the pointed end of his ski pole and had grip tape on his hands at the time? Should the grip tape manufacturer be liable? The tape made him unable to toss the pole away from his body. It compromised his safety.

Sorry, a mature, adult, thinking human decided to mount a camera on his helmet and any result of that is based on a conscious decision he made.

The camera manufacturer has no control over where the camera is mounted or whether it is mounted at all, or how many are mounted. They sell a product that can be used for multiple purposes and the camera did what it was designed to do. It did not cause the fall, or make the fall worse, or harder, or less controlled. It had zero impact on the event of falling.

Ruling is for the defendant. Case dismissed. :D

[Kerrmudgeon]

You're just a likely to hit the corner of a concrete wall, or the stump of a tree limb as to have the camera pierce your helmet. It's a ACCIDENT! :yesnod:

[LATB]

can't sue a rock, but you can sue a company with deep pockets.

Unless that rock happens to be on a wealthy mans property.

[Nemesis]

I disagree. Sorry.

Agree to disagree.

[LATB]

The simple fact is that if they want to sell such an item, they should test for such incidents.

The #2 pencil when sharpened can put an eye out. They need to test for such incidents.

[Iron Chef]

Sorry, a mature, adult, thinking human decided to mount a camera on his helmet and any result of that is based on a conscious decision he made.

What the hell is wrong with you?? These days, we as individuals HAVE to video absolutely everything we do. It's our responsibility to social media. :willy:

[Aerovette]

What the hell is wrong with you?? These days, we as individuals HAVE to video absolutely everything we do. It's our responsibility to social media. :willy:

Then he should use his phone like everyone else. :D

Someone needs to come up with a tracking device so that your video quad copter can follow you where ever you go...30 feet above you.

[Dave]

Title correction:

Some numbnuts commentator with no meaningful background or knowledge speculates a possible relationship between Go Pro camera and Michael Schumacher injury

Someone please explain how a camera stuck to a helmet can adversely affect the energy absorption qualities of the helmet.

Also, what was the rating on the helmet he was wearing? By which body was it tested and certified?

[SnikPlosskin]

Title correction:

Some numbnuts commentator with no meaningful background or knowledge speculates a possible relationship between Go Pro camera and Michael Schumacher injury

Someone please explain how a camera stuck to a helmet can adversely affect the energy absorption qualities of the helmet.

Also, what was the rating on the helmet he was wearing? By which body was it tested and certified?

The camera (or any similarly shaped, hard object) increases the force per square inch on the helmet exponentially. Helmets are designed to absorb impact over a larger surface area. If this area is very small (like the corner of the GoPro case) I have no doubt it was cause catastrophic failure if the helmet's integrity.

That being said, sometimes an accident is an accident.

[RedLS1GTO]

If this area is very small (like the corner of the GoPro case) I have no doubt it was cause catastrophic failure if the helmet's integrity.

... and how exactly would hitting a rock be different than the camera? Last I checked, they weren't usually perfectly smooth objects with optimal force distribution surface characteristics.

[Aerovette]

The camera (or any similarly shaped, hard object) increases the force per square inch on the helmet exponentially. Helmets are designed to absorb impact over a larger surface area. If this area is very small (like the corner of the GoPro case) I have no doubt it was cause catastrophic failure if the helmet's integrity.

That being said, sometimes an accident is an accident.

If the point of concentration is attached to the helmet, or encountered as part of the fall, the helmet will (should) behave the same.

The focal point of force based od the spot where the camera attaches to the adhesive base is probably .25 x .25 but then the focal point is again spread a bit by the adhesive base. Unscientifically, let's say it increases by 1.5.

That concentrated point of force is the same as if he were to fall and hit a rock point, or a stub of a branch, or a piece of binding. The helmet does not know whether the breach was made by something attached or unattached. The helmet manufacturer obviously does not have a design that can protect against that type of focused breach. That is NOT GoPros fault. :cert:

[Dave]

The camera (or any similarly shaped, hard object) increases the force per square inch on the helmet exponentially. Helmets are designed to absorb impact over a larger surface area. If this area is very small (like the corner of the GoPro case) I have no doubt it was cause catastrophic failure if the helmet's integrity.

That being said, sometimes an accident is an accident.

What type of helmet was he wearing and what type of impact was it tested/certified for?

And the impact was a direct blow to the GoPro, such that the sole path of energy was through the mounting base and was in no way a glancing blow? So the camera didn't get hit on an angle, the mount of the camera didn't deflect laterally, no energy was absorbed by the camera and the mount? Energy only through the GoPro base? Got it.

[SnikPlosskin]

If the point of concentration is attached to the helmet, or encountered as part of the fall, the helmet will (should) behave the same.

The focal point of force based od the spot where the camera attaches to the adhesive base is probably .25 x .25 but then the focal point is again spread a bit by the adhesive base. Unscientifically, let's say it increases by 1.5.

That concentrated point of force is the same as if he were to fall and hit a rock point, or a stub of a branch, or a piece of binding. The helmet does not know whether the breach was made by something attached or unattached. The helmet manufacturer obviously does not have a design that can protect against that type of focused breach. That is NOT GoPros fault. :cert:

I agree, GoPro has ZERO liability here. And you make a good point.

Although I still think you're an idiot. :D

[Aerovette]

I agree, GoPro has ZERO liability here. And you make a good point.

Although I still think you're an idiot. :D

I value your judge of character sir. :seasix: