Seriously DC? Why?

Natester551v
Profile picture for user Natester551v
Posts
996
Joined
1/11/2015
Location
St. George, UT, USA
Natester551v 5/10/2021 5:25am
5/10/2021 5:25am
navalseabee wrote:
Is there an actual study or data to back this decision or is it just a "we think it's safer"?
Exactly....
5
Steve125
Profile picture for user Steve125
Posts
1410
Joined
11/24/2010
Location
USA
Steve125 5/10/2021 5:35am
5/10/2021 5:35am
They don't want you landing head first on your camera, but its OK to land head first on a Brick (Indy) laying on a Supercross track.
3
6
LungButter
Profile picture for user LungButter
Posts
8684
Joined
1/9/2016
Location
Yellow Pine, ID, USA
LungButter 5/10/2021 5:48am
5/10/2021 5:48am
navalseabee wrote:
Is there an actual study or data to back this decision or is it just a "we think it's safer"?
Seems like common sense that it can’t be safer to strap a foreign object to your helmet.

Can you really not see how a big square sticking up off the top of your helmet isn’t good?

You really don’t understand that an extra 5oz+ on your helmet probably isn’t the greatest idea?

Seriously?

I never even taken a physics class but that shit seems basic as hell to me.

11
5
Zycki11
Profile picture for user Zycki11
Posts
7843
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Edwardsville, IL, USA
Zycki11 5/10/2021 5:52am
5/10/2021 5:52am Edited Date/Time 5/10/2021 5:53am
Steve125 wrote:
They don't want you landing head first on your camera, but its OK to land head first on a Brick (Indy) laying on a Supercross track.
That’s the main issue I think many are pointing out. Of all safety concerns, I think most can understand it doesn’t help a rider landing on there head with a direct shot on the camera. Obviously a helmet allows the head to take better “glancing blows” than a square.

With that said, why take a stance with the camera of all things? They help promote the sport even if others believe you can do so without it. Matthes nets while a simple idea is genius. The safety concern to me is a cloak. It isn’t some grandiose conspiracy theory in the works. But I do feel the concern while in the right place is futile in this regard.

Wouldn’t you start with say qualified flaggers that go to each event for standardization and consistency? Perhaps the best thing vital can do is start to brainstorm safety options that better racing.
1
6

The Shop

See All »
LungButter
Profile picture for user LungButter
Posts
8684
Joined
1/9/2016
Location
Yellow Pine, ID, USA
LungButter 5/10/2021 6:13am
5/10/2021 6:13am
Zycki11 wrote:
That’s the main issue I think many are pointing out. Of all safety concerns, I think most can understand it doesn’t help a rider landing on...
That’s the main issue I think many are pointing out. Of all safety concerns, I think most can understand it doesn’t help a rider landing on there head with a direct shot on the camera. Obviously a helmet allows the head to take better “glancing blows” than a square.

With that said, why take a stance with the camera of all things? They help promote the sport even if others believe you can do so without it. Matthes nets while a simple idea is genius. The safety concern to me is a cloak. It isn’t some grandiose conspiracy theory in the works. But I do feel the concern while in the right place is futile in this regard.

Wouldn’t you start with say qualified flaggers that go to each event for standardization and consistency? Perhaps the best thing vital can do is start to brainstorm safety options that better racing.
Why not do anything and everything we can to make it safer?

You’re acknowledging no camera makes a helmet safer so why wait?

You think they need to make other aspects safer first and then ban cameras? How does that make sense?
4
3
endurox
Profile picture for user endurox
Posts
2097
Joined
3/22/2014
Location
Garden City, ID, USA
endurox 5/10/2021 6:24am
5/10/2021 6:24am
Pala is on Indian Nation Land. The riders should all show up at the starting line with cameras and the Pala tribe should say that it is mandatory to wear a helmet camera.
2
16
APLMAN99
Profile picture for user APLMAN99
Posts
12647
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
320th
APLMAN99 5/10/2021 6:28am
5/10/2021 6:28am
APLMAN99 wrote:
I’m using the term ignorance correctly. You are trying to justify your stance because of the financial ramifications, which makes it too subjective. I’m not sure...
I’m using the term ignorance correctly.

You are trying to justify your stance because of the financial ramifications, which makes it too subjective.

I’m not sure what you meant by “Of all people I have a large understanding of this.” Have you had an incident that somehow proved that an object mounted to the smooth surface of a helmet has no potential to increase the chances of rider injury? That’s rhetorical, of course, because you certainly couldn’t prove that negative through a simple experience.

What is observable, though, are incidents where something on a helmet with an ‘edge’ can potentially grab the ground and force the helmet to stop sliding, increasing stress on the neck and increasing the chances of injury. Happened to one of my very good friends and college roommates playing football. While there isn’t any great video angles of his moment of injury, his doctors felt pretty confident that the forehead mounts of his face mask ‘bit’ into the turf and kept his helmet from sliding, resulting in his SCI that has made him a high functioning quadriplegic for the last 30 years.

It was very much a ‘freak’ accident, and obviously face masks need to be mounted to a football helmet, but it’s still an example of what can occur when the smooth surface of a helmet is interrupted by something that can make it dig into the ground.

While I don’t really know what the odds are of this happening to an SX/MX racer overall, my personal experience is that limiting the number of things that can make a racer’s head stop instantly or for their body mass to rotate around a ‘stuck’ helmet is probably a good thing whether there are financial benefits to the promoters or sanctioning body.
Zycki11 wrote:
I’m finding this a bit tricky. I am sorry for your buddy that’s a situation that sucks all the way around. I personally have my own...
I’m finding this a bit tricky. I am sorry for your buddy that’s a situation that sucks all the way around. I personally have my own deal I was handed riding. With that said, I find it hard to believe doctors who can only look at X-rays and guess with opinion. The GoPro has a mount that sticks on your helmet made of plastic. Coupled with the arm on the GoPro and it seems as either one of these that are made of plastic will break first. I have personally had mine fly off during a wreck multiple times.

The question that still stands is what can they possibly gain by doing this? If you believe it to be a safety related concern, why would they start with amateurs and then move to the professional side a year later with eliminations? Why not force riders to wear chest protectors, neck braces etc.? Because it should be the riders choice.

What this is doing is ensuring that anyone who wants to use a camera has to sign up before hand and the nationals have to agree and stipulate the terms.

In the end, again you are placing your thoughts on a situation and called someone irrational based on your assessment. Take a step back and wonder why it’s happening.
You may find it hard to believe doctors and believe that they are ‘guessing’ but I think that the doctors at Craig in Denver have a pretty large base of knowledge to use for their interpretations of accident reconstruction.

As for your other tangents, they don’t really make a lot of sense.

Yes, the camera itself would likely break away very quickly and the base would probably break somewhat, thereby creating jagged edges to help dig into the ground. That should seem obvious.

And if this were simply about money, why would they have started on the amateur side first? If it were merely financial it would have made far more sense to start on the pro side, wouldn’t it?

Your argument seems to be summed up as ‘since the AMA isn’t fixing EVERY possible safety issue, they shouldn’t fix any of them’. That’s completely irrational.

I’ll leave you with your own appraisal and advice for you to try to follow first......

In the end, again you are placing your thoughts on a situation and called the AMA irrational based on your subjective assessment. Take a step back and look objectively at the reasons for why it’s happening, without the subjectivity of your own desire to simply see cool footage.
6
5
Up Wind
Profile picture for user Up Wind
Posts
381
Joined
4/6/2021
Location
Auburn, CA, USA
Up Wind 5/10/2021 6:30am
5/10/2021 6:30am
endurox wrote:
Pala is on Indian Nation Land. The riders should all show up at the starting line with cameras and the Pala tribe should say that it...
Pala is on Indian Nation Land. The riders should all show up at the starting line with cameras and the Pala tribe should say that it is mandatory to wear a helmet camera.
Just watched the video on a new post named Malcom at Pala with a helmet cam.
APLMAN99
Profile picture for user APLMAN99
Posts
12647
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
320th
APLMAN99 5/10/2021 6:30am
5/10/2021 6:30am

1
APLMAN99
Profile picture for user APLMAN99
Posts
12647
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
320th
APLMAN99 5/10/2021 6:43am
5/10/2021 6:43am
Maestro wrote:
Couldn’t somebody design a magnetic mounting plate to mount the cameras to? It could be something really flat. In an impact with any kind of twist...
Couldn’t somebody design a magnetic mounting plate to mount the cameras to? It could be something really flat. In an impact with any kind of twist or shear it’d probably just pop straight off and not really effect the crash performance of the helmet..I dunno, just a thought.
That might work, but not sure that many would appreciate the weight or other negatives of a steel helmet shell.....

😎
3
Johnny Ringo
Profile picture for user Johnny Ringo
Posts
8219
Joined
1/11/2016
Location
Tombstone, AZ, USA
Johnny Ringo 5/10/2021 6:45am
5/10/2021 6:45am
If safety was a concern we’d require ANSI ratings on goggles, mandatory chest protection, etc. why stop at cameras?
4
9
Zycki11
Profile picture for user Zycki11
Posts
7843
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Edwardsville, IL, USA
Zycki11 5/10/2021 6:58am
5/10/2021 6:58am
APLMAN99 wrote:
I’m using the term ignorance correctly. You are trying to justify your stance because of the financial ramifications, which makes it too subjective. I’m not sure...
I’m using the term ignorance correctly.

You are trying to justify your stance because of the financial ramifications, which makes it too subjective.

I’m not sure what you meant by “Of all people I have a large understanding of this.” Have you had an incident that somehow proved that an object mounted to the smooth surface of a helmet has no potential to increase the chances of rider injury? That’s rhetorical, of course, because you certainly couldn’t prove that negative through a simple experience.

What is observable, though, are incidents where something on a helmet with an ‘edge’ can potentially grab the ground and force the helmet to stop sliding, increasing stress on the neck and increasing the chances of injury. Happened to one of my very good friends and college roommates playing football. While there isn’t any great video angles of his moment of injury, his doctors felt pretty confident that the forehead mounts of his face mask ‘bit’ into the turf and kept his helmet from sliding, resulting in his SCI that has made him a high functioning quadriplegic for the last 30 years.

It was very much a ‘freak’ accident, and obviously face masks need to be mounted to a football helmet, but it’s still an example of what can occur when the smooth surface of a helmet is interrupted by something that can make it dig into the ground.

While I don’t really know what the odds are of this happening to an SX/MX racer overall, my personal experience is that limiting the number of things that can make a racer’s head stop instantly or for their body mass to rotate around a ‘stuck’ helmet is probably a good thing whether there are financial benefits to the promoters or sanctioning body.
Zycki11 wrote:
I’m finding this a bit tricky. I am sorry for your buddy that’s a situation that sucks all the way around. I personally have my own...
I’m finding this a bit tricky. I am sorry for your buddy that’s a situation that sucks all the way around. I personally have my own deal I was handed riding. With that said, I find it hard to believe doctors who can only look at X-rays and guess with opinion. The GoPro has a mount that sticks on your helmet made of plastic. Coupled with the arm on the GoPro and it seems as either one of these that are made of plastic will break first. I have personally had mine fly off during a wreck multiple times.

The question that still stands is what can they possibly gain by doing this? If you believe it to be a safety related concern, why would they start with amateurs and then move to the professional side a year later with eliminations? Why not force riders to wear chest protectors, neck braces etc.? Because it should be the riders choice.

What this is doing is ensuring that anyone who wants to use a camera has to sign up before hand and the nationals have to agree and stipulate the terms.

In the end, again you are placing your thoughts on a situation and called someone irrational based on your assessment. Take a step back and wonder why it’s happening.
APLMAN99 wrote:
You may find it hard to believe doctors and believe that they are ‘guessing’ but I think that the doctors at Craig in Denver have a...
You may find it hard to believe doctors and believe that they are ‘guessing’ but I think that the doctors at Craig in Denver have a pretty large base of knowledge to use for their interpretations of accident reconstruction.

As for your other tangents, they don’t really make a lot of sense.

Yes, the camera itself would likely break away very quickly and the base would probably break somewhat, thereby creating jagged edges to help dig into the ground. That should seem obvious.

And if this were simply about money, why would they have started on the amateur side first? If it were merely financial it would have made far more sense to start on the pro side, wouldn’t it?

Your argument seems to be summed up as ‘since the AMA isn’t fixing EVERY possible safety issue, they shouldn’t fix any of them’. That’s completely irrational.

I’ll leave you with your own appraisal and advice for you to try to follow first......

In the end, again you are placing your thoughts on a situation and called the AMA irrational based on your subjective assessment. Take a step back and look objectively at the reasons for why it’s happening, without the subjectivity of your own desire to simply see cool footage.
I’m very well aware of Craig. I have spent time myself in the facility. All you are doing is refuting what I am saying based on your friend, and the idea that cameras are bad for the helmet. I am not stating the ama “should fix everything” I am pointing out that of all areas of “safety” this is not the most important. Of all proposals why would they start here? Contractual obligations to sponsors.

Again, your believing I am coming from a specific angle of the camera must be mounted on the head and it inflicts zero damage. This is not the case by any means. I can’t help but laugh a bit at you being so sure footed on my idea of “cool” footage when you haven’t understood the point. I cited reasons as to why it doesn’t add up. Many others did the exact same thing with great logic.

The whole premise of this thread is to spin the wheels on what is happening with our sport. The politics, the red tape, and the safety.

While I can understand your points, it is simply ignorant to believe this is the AMA doing what is right for the riders. The AMA is very irrational, irregular and a joke of a body. If this was TRULY about safety, many more measures would be put into place that would benefit the racers both amateur and professional.

Your comment on objectivity is solely based on you believing I am some young punk who wants GoPro edits for a super sweet YouTube channel for 600 likes. If you were to be thinking objectively then you would see that of all rules that are implemented. To start with this is a joke in terms of safety.
1
5
richardwhite
Profile picture for user richardwhite
Posts
145
Joined
9/17/2008
Location
Cleburne, TX, USA
richardwhite 5/10/2021 7:00am
5/10/2021 7:00am
I'm Just trying to figure out how to monetize a amateur rule....
5
Zycki11
Profile picture for user Zycki11
Posts
7843
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Edwardsville, IL, USA
Zycki11 5/10/2021 7:03am
5/10/2021 7:03am
Zycki11 wrote:
That’s the main issue I think many are pointing out. Of all safety concerns, I think most can understand it doesn’t help a rider landing on...
That’s the main issue I think many are pointing out. Of all safety concerns, I think most can understand it doesn’t help a rider landing on there head with a direct shot on the camera. Obviously a helmet allows the head to take better “glancing blows” than a square.

With that said, why take a stance with the camera of all things? They help promote the sport even if others believe you can do so without it. Matthes nets while a simple idea is genius. The safety concern to me is a cloak. It isn’t some grandiose conspiracy theory in the works. But I do feel the concern while in the right place is futile in this regard.

Wouldn’t you start with say qualified flaggers that go to each event for standardization and consistency? Perhaps the best thing vital can do is start to brainstorm safety options that better racing.
LungButter wrote:
Why not do anything and everything we can to make it safer? You’re acknowledging no camera makes a helmet safer so why wait? You think they...
Why not do anything and everything we can to make it safer?

You’re acknowledging no camera makes a helmet safer so why wait?

You think they need to make other aspects safer first and then ban cameras? How does that make sense?
It is more so on principle. If the AMA was serious they would have a safety board. If the AMA was serious they would have made chest protectors mandatory years ago. If the AMA was serious they would be the riders union and force promoters to listen to the racers. If the AMA was serious they would implement more nets, take away steaks, remove banners with wood, wire fencing etc.
4
2
AE448
Profile picture for user AE448
Posts
116
Joined
4/10/2015
Location
GB
AE448 5/10/2021 7:34am
5/10/2021 7:34am Edited Date/Time 5/10/2021 7:43am
There seems to be very little in the way of scientific evidence that GoPros / other helmet-mounted cameras can do serious harm if you land on your head in the wrong manner. I mean, surely the camera would snap off before any serious damage is done? I do agree though that it's possible this could cause the helmet not to "soak" up the impact or act as it should. Again, who really knows...I've used a GoPro myself recently a few times and although they are light for what they are, you can definitely feel the added weight on top of your helmet when you first put it on.

I'm all for safety...it's a bummer for those great vlogs and I agree they have done more for motocross in the past couple years than any major organization has done. I would like to see chest/back protectors made mandatory whilst we are on the safety train...when you really think about it, it is madness that most guys just wear a light piece of foam under their jersey to protect from roost. How easy would it be to have one of these razor sharp footpegs rupture the chest or vital organs?
1
4
richardwhite
Profile picture for user richardwhite
Posts
145
Joined
9/17/2008
Location
Cleburne, TX, USA
richardwhite 5/10/2021 7:44am
5/10/2021 7:44am
Zycki11 wrote:
That’s the main issue I think many are pointing out. Of all safety concerns, I think most can understand it doesn’t help a rider landing on...
That’s the main issue I think many are pointing out. Of all safety concerns, I think most can understand it doesn’t help a rider landing on there head with a direct shot on the camera. Obviously a helmet allows the head to take better “glancing blows” than a square.

With that said, why take a stance with the camera of all things? They help promote the sport even if others believe you can do so without it. Matthes nets while a simple idea is genius. The safety concern to me is a cloak. It isn’t some grandiose conspiracy theory in the works. But I do feel the concern while in the right place is futile in this regard.

Wouldn’t you start with say qualified flaggers that go to each event for standardization and consistency? Perhaps the best thing vital can do is start to brainstorm safety options that better racing.
LungButter wrote:
Why not do anything and everything we can to make it safer? You’re acknowledging no camera makes a helmet safer so why wait? You think they...
Why not do anything and everything we can to make it safer?

You’re acknowledging no camera makes a helmet safer so why wait?

You think they need to make other aspects safer first and then ban cameras? How does that make sense?
Zycki11 wrote:
It is more so on principle. If the AMA was serious they would have a safety board. If the AMA was serious they would have made...
It is more so on principle. If the AMA was serious they would have a safety board. If the AMA was serious they would have made chest protectors mandatory years ago. If the AMA was serious they would be the riders union and force promoters to listen to the racers. If the AMA was serious they would implement more nets, take away steaks, remove banners with wood, wire fencing etc.
you mean this?

https://americanmotorcyclist.com/ama-competition-commissions/
1
4
byke
Profile picture for user byke
Posts
3063
Joined
8/12/2015
Location
Auburn, CA, USA
byke 5/10/2021 8:48am
5/10/2021 8:48am
navalseabee wrote:
Is there an actual study or data to back this decision or is it just a "we think it's safer"?
LungButter wrote:
Seems like common sense that it can’t be safer to strap a foreign object to your helmet. Can you really not see how a big square...
Seems like common sense that it can’t be safer to strap a foreign object to your helmet.

Can you really not see how a big square sticking up off the top of your helmet isn’t good?

You really don’t understand that an extra 5oz+ on your helmet probably isn’t the greatest idea?

Seriously?

I never even taken a physics class but that shit seems basic as hell to me.

Wrong physics. It's not the weight that presents a possible safety issue.
4

Pit Row

See All »
APLMAN99
Profile picture for user APLMAN99
Posts
12647
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
320th
APLMAN99 5/10/2021 9:59am
5/10/2021 9:59am
Zycki11 wrote:
I’m finding this a bit tricky. I am sorry for your buddy that’s a situation that sucks all the way around. I personally have my own...
I’m finding this a bit tricky. I am sorry for your buddy that’s a situation that sucks all the way around. I personally have my own deal I was handed riding. With that said, I find it hard to believe doctors who can only look at X-rays and guess with opinion. The GoPro has a mount that sticks on your helmet made of plastic. Coupled with the arm on the GoPro and it seems as either one of these that are made of plastic will break first. I have personally had mine fly off during a wreck multiple times.

The question that still stands is what can they possibly gain by doing this? If you believe it to be a safety related concern, why would they start with amateurs and then move to the professional side a year later with eliminations? Why not force riders to wear chest protectors, neck braces etc.? Because it should be the riders choice.

What this is doing is ensuring that anyone who wants to use a camera has to sign up before hand and the nationals have to agree and stipulate the terms.

In the end, again you are placing your thoughts on a situation and called someone irrational based on your assessment. Take a step back and wonder why it’s happening.
APLMAN99 wrote:
You may find it hard to believe doctors and believe that they are ‘guessing’ but I think that the doctors at Craig in Denver have a...
You may find it hard to believe doctors and believe that they are ‘guessing’ but I think that the doctors at Craig in Denver have a pretty large base of knowledge to use for their interpretations of accident reconstruction.

As for your other tangents, they don’t really make a lot of sense.

Yes, the camera itself would likely break away very quickly and the base would probably break somewhat, thereby creating jagged edges to help dig into the ground. That should seem obvious.

And if this were simply about money, why would they have started on the amateur side first? If it were merely financial it would have made far more sense to start on the pro side, wouldn’t it?

Your argument seems to be summed up as ‘since the AMA isn’t fixing EVERY possible safety issue, they shouldn’t fix any of them’. That’s completely irrational.

I’ll leave you with your own appraisal and advice for you to try to follow first......

In the end, again you are placing your thoughts on a situation and called the AMA irrational based on your subjective assessment. Take a step back and look objectively at the reasons for why it’s happening, without the subjectivity of your own desire to simply see cool footage.
Zycki11 wrote:
I’m very well aware of Craig. I have spent time myself in the facility. All you are doing is refuting what I am saying based on...
I’m very well aware of Craig. I have spent time myself in the facility. All you are doing is refuting what I am saying based on your friend, and the idea that cameras are bad for the helmet. I am not stating the ama “should fix everything” I am pointing out that of all areas of “safety” this is not the most important. Of all proposals why would they start here? Contractual obligations to sponsors.

Again, your believing I am coming from a specific angle of the camera must be mounted on the head and it inflicts zero damage. This is not the case by any means. I can’t help but laugh a bit at you being so sure footed on my idea of “cool” footage when you haven’t understood the point. I cited reasons as to why it doesn’t add up. Many others did the exact same thing with great logic.

The whole premise of this thread is to spin the wheels on what is happening with our sport. The politics, the red tape, and the safety.

While I can understand your points, it is simply ignorant to believe this is the AMA doing what is right for the riders. The AMA is very irrational, irregular and a joke of a body. If this was TRULY about safety, many more measures would be put into place that would benefit the racers both amateur and professional.

Your comment on objectivity is solely based on you believing I am some young punk who wants GoPro edits for a super sweet YouTube channel for 600 likes. If you were to be thinking objectively then you would see that of all rules that are implemented. To start with this is a joke in terms of safety.
Craig is an amazing hospital, that's why I am fairly certain that the doctors were not simply "guessing" about the likely cause of his injury but were relying on their experience to help determine the 'why' of how his injury occurred.

You obviously don't seem to understand that the camera has the potential to cause injury, otherwise you would not be railing so hard about them making this decision. Even if it doesn't rank high on your 'list', a rational person should be happy for any safety advancement, especially one that doesn't affect the quality of the competition itself.

There are many measures put in place for the safety of the racers. Can there be more? Certainly. And as time goes by we see different rules that come to pass as obstacles are overcome.

I have no idea how old you are, but you are obviously putting the videos above safety in this instance.

"To start with this is a joke in terms of safety." - This is an odd statement. This is not a 'start'. This is a reaction to a potential hazard that doesn't need to be there, and is relatively easy to solve and enforce. Not all potential safety issues have as easy of a solution, but that doesn't mean that people are not working to try to find those alternatives.
1
2
LungButter
Profile picture for user LungButter
Posts
8684
Joined
1/9/2016
Location
Yellow Pine, ID, USA
LungButter 5/10/2021 10:04am
5/10/2021 10:04am
byke wrote:
Wrong physics. It's not the weight that presents a possible safety issue.
Then why are all high end helmets striving to be lighter and lighter?
4
byke
Profile picture for user byke
Posts
3063
Joined
8/12/2015
Location
Auburn, CA, USA
byke 5/10/2021 10:15am
5/10/2021 10:15am
byke wrote:
Wrong physics. It's not the weight that presents a possible safety issue.
LungButter wrote:
Then why are all high end helmets striving to be lighter and lighter?
Light helmets feel great and don't cause as much fatigue. That extra 5oz weight isn't breaking anyone's neck. If it's really safety related, it probably has to do with spreading out impacts over large surface areas versus small surface areas.
2
GrapeApe
Profile picture for user GrapeApe
Posts
8889
Joined
6/7/2010
Location
Mc Kinney, TX, USA
GrapeApe 5/10/2021 10:32am
5/10/2021 10:32am
Zycki11 wrote:
It is more so on principle. If the AMA was serious they would have a safety board. If the AMA was serious they would have made...
It is more so on principle. If the AMA was serious they would have a safety board. If the AMA was serious they would have made chest protectors mandatory years ago. If the AMA was serious they would be the riders union and force promoters to listen to the racers. If the AMA was serious they would implement more nets, take away steaks, remove banners with wood, wire fencing etc.
It's fine if you're vegan or vegetarian or something, but don't ruin it for the rest of us steak eaters
3
TeamGreen
Profile picture for user TeamGreen
Posts
37228
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA, USA
TeamGreen 5/10/2021 10:37am
5/10/2021 10:37am Edited Date/Time 5/10/2021 10:38am
Title of this thread still says “No Cameras”...

Classic Dramaesque mis-statement
2
1
Zycki11
Profile picture for user Zycki11
Posts
7843
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Edwardsville, IL, USA
Zycki11 5/10/2021 10:39am
5/10/2021 10:39am
APLMAN99 wrote:
Craig is an amazing hospital, that's why I am fairly certain that the doctors were not simply "guessing" about the likely cause of his injury but...
Craig is an amazing hospital, that's why I am fairly certain that the doctors were not simply "guessing" about the likely cause of his injury but were relying on their experience to help determine the 'why' of how his injury occurred.

You obviously don't seem to understand that the camera has the potential to cause injury, otherwise you would not be railing so hard about them making this decision. Even if it doesn't rank high on your 'list', a rational person should be happy for any safety advancement, especially one that doesn't affect the quality of the competition itself.

There are many measures put in place for the safety of the racers. Can there be more? Certainly. And as time goes by we see different rules that come to pass as obstacles are overcome.

I have no idea how old you are, but you are obviously putting the videos above safety in this instance.

"To start with this is a joke in terms of safety." - This is an odd statement. This is not a 'start'. This is a reaction to a potential hazard that doesn't need to be there, and is relatively easy to solve and enforce. Not all potential safety issues have as easy of a solution, but that doesn't mean that people are not working to try to find those alternatives.
I never once said that cameras do not pose a risk. I do not believe it to be a high risk. Obviously this is my personal opinion.

Yes you are correct, in terms of safety this is a joke compared to other issues. Your statement on the “reaction” to potential hazards would hold a bit more water if the promoters didn’t stop Sony and 360 from joining the party a few years back.

Safety is a very difficult subject. You can see lately it has been at the forefront with Ryno speaking about knee guards, or Musqain winning as soon as he took his neck brace off. Everyone will have an opinion. The AMA has a terrible track record of not being consistent and they certainly couldn’t give a rats ass about safety of the riders. Heck, In supercross when a turn has a hip jump and they don’t want the riders to jump the cover we they place a pole in the location to prevent the riders from jumping it lol.

Couple this lovely logic with promoters monopolizing footage for GoPro licensing as well as ESPN, followed by MavTv, NBC Sports, and now peacock. I hardly consider this to be a safety only reasoning.

I just hope that one day the riders are smart enough to band together, until then they will always be a circus act. We can do better collectively as motorcycle enthusiasts.
1
6
Zycki11
Profile picture for user Zycki11
Posts
7843
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Edwardsville, IL, USA
Zycki11 5/10/2021 10:40am
5/10/2021 10:40am
TeamGreen wrote:
Title of this thread still says “No Cameras”...

Classic Dramaesque mis-statement
Changed just for you because your special 😃
7
ByronFRiday 5/10/2021 10:41am
5/10/2021 10:41am Edited Date/Time 5/10/2021 10:55am
What about the obvious dangers of:

* spinning rear wheel - knobby tire.
* clutch and brake levers?
* sprocket and chain-saw?
* forks - over sized metal bar that could annihilate the human body.
* oh and lets NOT inherent danger of a speeding motorcycle on a obstacle filled dirt bike race course. 80ft doubles at 60mph.

2
11
TeamGreen
Profile picture for user TeamGreen
Posts
37228
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA, USA
TeamGreen 5/10/2021 10:41am
5/10/2021 10:41am
TeamGreen wrote:
Title of this thread still says “No Cameras”...

Classic Dramaesque mis-statement
Zycki11 wrote:
Changed just for you because your special 😃
Changed it?

Nice!
Zycki11
Profile picture for user Zycki11
Posts
7843
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Edwardsville, IL, USA
Zycki11 5/10/2021 10:42am
5/10/2021 10:42am
GrapeApe wrote:
It's fine if you're vegan or vegetarian or something, but don't ruin it for the rest of us steak eaters
Not even close with your assumption. I personally believe less is more. In the end I am saying that this while stated as a “safety” reason is pretty comical.
1
4
GrapeApe
Profile picture for user GrapeApe
Posts
8889
Joined
6/7/2010
Location
Mc Kinney, TX, USA
GrapeApe 5/10/2021 10:45am
5/10/2021 10:45am
GrapeApe wrote:
It's fine if you're vegan or vegetarian or something, but don't ruin it for the rest of us steak eaters
Zycki11 wrote:
Not even close with your assumption. I personally believe less is more. In the end I am saying that this while stated as a “safety” reason...
Not even close with your assumption. I personally believe less is more. In the end I am saying that this while stated as a “safety” reason is pretty comical.
Then why take away steaks?
3
Zycki11
Profile picture for user Zycki11
Posts
7843
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Edwardsville, IL, USA
Zycki11 5/10/2021 10:45am
5/10/2021 10:45am
GrapeApe wrote:
It's fine if you're vegan or vegetarian or something, but don't ruin it for the rest of us steak eaters
Zycki11 wrote:
Not even close with your assumption. I personally believe less is more. In the end I am saying that this while stated as a “safety” reason...
Not even close with your assumption. I personally believe less is more. In the end I am saying that this while stated as a “safety” reason is pretty comical.
GrapeApe wrote:
Then why take away steaks?
Lol touché!
2

Post a reply to: Seriously DC? Why?