Don’t know if this has been done but just seen that they have announced it today. No equipment deemed not for the purpose of racing to be banned. Apparently due to people using it to sue them over crashes.

The banning of protrusions (ooh err) does not surprise me but the reason given above does. Surely there are enough witnesses during a race if anyone wants to pursue a claim.

Just enforcing the rules then.

Surely there are enough witnesses during a race if anyone wants to pursue a claim.

Would be easy to crash at a lot of races with only a marshal in sight

Read it here.

The bit about the footage being shared is true. We all like the head cam footage from these events. Seems silly to ban it

You’ll also be disqualified if you cross the white line in a road race (open road) but it doesn’t happen.

Shame as the footage would be useful for promoting pro level sport.

Read it. So just enforcing an existing rule then.

fourbanger, I believe that the OP (and the article) are implying that the rule is stoopid.

Work is finished – pedant mode off. I agree!

So you cant wear a watch now whilst racing or a cycle computer, or carry a phone?

Not if they don’t sponsor the event/BC or get special dispensation.

I feel a little sympathy for BC on this, if the reason given is genuine and some idiots are using headcam footage to sue BC, then they are between a rock and a hard place. Although stating that as a reason may imply that there are dangers that they would prefer to cover up, I suspect that a court may not view the acceptable dangers of racing the way we expect most competitors to, leaving BC in a bit of a fix.

I sort of see that. However if someone is that serious about surfing then they could just go back to the course and take photos or video of the sections they viewed as dangerous. If it is to do with other issues when racing then it would be witness statements and such. I can’t really see a case where you could argue that you didn’t know the risks!

I assume there haven’t really ben any lawsuits, just bc banning the cams as, so they say, a precautionary measure.

It does read a bit as if bc wants to minimise its accountability mind. No justification in my mind.

Unlikely to be safety, cos it’s a blanket ban – no chestys either.
Although….

I’m wondering if there’s a commercial/sponsorship reason, considering the dispensation to allow for a single official video by a sponsoring brand…… No, that couldn’t be it. 😆

It comes, we’re told, from British Cycling’s increasing nervousness about legal action following accidents at their events.

So not actually what BC have said, but an unnamed third party’s assumption…..

I’d have thought it would be far more likely to be to do with maintaining some sort of control over tv/filming/online rights to the footage (or selling them to an official headcam sponsor). It also allows more control over what crash footage is available online, not for legal reasons but for the image of the sport.

You could argue it is a vital part of your racing set up anyway. As it a way of reviewing your race and tekkers.

Legal action doesn’t sound like a convincing reason- all that could do is collect evidence of organisers doing something wrong, and that’s still going to be the case with witnesses, bystander videos etc. So if BC have something to worry about there, they should still be worried and if they don’t then it makes no odds.

I don’t get it, maybe more explanation will be forthcoming. In the past there’s been concerns raised about them causing injury but I’m yet to hear of that actually happening. You need a pretty damn good reason to make a ruling that’ll hurt the sport.

I’m wondering if there’s a commercial/sponsorship reason, considering the dispensation to allow for a single official video by a sponsoring brand…… No, that couldn’t be it.

This. It’s all about controlling the media coming out of events.

jam bo – Member
I’m wondering if there’s a commercial/sponsorship reason, considering the dispensation to allow for a single official video by a sponsoring brand…… No, that couldn’t be it.
This. It’s all about controlling the media coming out of events.
POSTED 1 MINUTE AGO # REPORT-POST

+1

The rule about no extraneous kit (includes lights, locks, mudguards etc) has always been there; the rule about cameras is a UCI rule and its all to do with media rights.

Scottish CX have had a similar policy for years… http://www.scottishcyclocross.org.uk/2012/09/scottish-cycling-have-been-in-touch.html

What is slightly bemusing is that the commercial benefactor is the series organiser, not bc, so I’m guessing that there has been some pressure applied by one or more third parties to enforce the rule. Unlikely that bc would enforce this off their own back I’d have thought.

changed their mind. funny that…

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/mtb/article/mtb20140327-mountain-bike-British-Cycling-statement-on-use-of-helmet-cams-in-competition-practice-0

I’ve been at CX races in the last couple of years where the Commissaire has asked a competitor to remove a helmet cam, and I have also done the same this last season. Its not a new rule.

Standard BC!

Fair enough really if its down to media rights, I can see it being more that than “please don’t sue”