No more helmet cams............

[jeff55v]

Can somebody please show me the notification showing that this helmet camera topic would be discussed at the national meeting? If there was no notification made to the membership prior to the meeting, how will I know to inform my regional representative about my opinion concerning the topic?

[bill van steenwyk]

nice idea, but it would not do much good in APBA

Jeff55V:

I certainly agree that something like this (banning of the head mounted camera) would be a good topic for discussion with the membership. Even though the various categories have the power to pass these type rules without a vote of the membership under the guise of "safety rules" it would still be nice to know in advance of yearly dues payment just what the circumstances you will be required to race under. That would give the member time to make a decision as to whether he would choose to race with a different sanctioning organization prior to payment of the large dues payment required these days. Based on what I have read on HR regards this rule, is came directly from the Safety Committee and its leadership. Would be interesting to know who posed it though, and the incidents or accidents that made it of importance.

Sometimes a little explanation goes a long way. The APBA site would seem to be a proper place for this explanation, but I have not seen anything the last time I looked.

I would imagine (I have no personal knowledge of this particular rule and what led to it) that because of the APBA/UIM affiliation, perhaps UIM had some input on this. Ultimately the buck stops on safety rules with Bob Wartinger, who is active in the UIM/APBA Safety area, and the Safety Committee, and anything sold to them or an individual category can be adopted by them with no membership vote. I understand the Safety Committee does have to agree with a Category and pass on the rule if passed by an individual Racing Commission. I also have heard the BOD has to approve, but I have no personal knowledge of that.

Long story short, "safety rules" or any other rule PHRASED as such, can be mandated (no radio use allowed) by an individual category with Safety Committee approval, or Wartinger and the Safety Committee, possibly with the approval of the BOD.
If I am wrong about this I am sure I will be set straight.

Just how silly this whole thing can get, (safety rules) is there are categories that require (MANDATE THE USE OF) certain equipment as "safety" oriented, and others that ban the use of the same equipment in certain of their classes, and not others, depending on how the competitor is positioned in the boat. The infamous "Radio Rule" comes to mind, and is a perfect example of this fractured thinking. Though this rule was appealed when first mandated (non-use of radios), and overturned, certain Commissioners learned that they could overturn it (the legality of radio use) by a vote of the membership. That was made possible by the unfortunate fact that even though the use of radios was found to be legal on appeal, because the Commission did not have the authority to make the rule as a Safety rule to start with, then the ability to use one was overturned on a vote of the membership because they (the appeal panel and ultimate person) did not rule on the use of them, but merely the legality of the Commission to make the rule to start with. Shades of the Pickle Fork rule the Stock Category just went thru. Chairman Eddie had his hand in that one also.

Until the Safety Committe would get different leadership, I doubt there will be much change in the confusion regards these rules, their necessity, and the difference in opinion as to whether these type rules are needed.

In my 40 years of watching and participating in the Boat Racing scene, the rules making process would seem to need as much changing as some of the rules themselves.

[ram95]

Bend over...let rover take over? Uh Uh!

Dawgonnit....I have to agree with Mike Pavlik that this rule doesn't affect but a very few folks who might mount a camera on their brain-bucket to record some stuff for the family archives. I mean, it's not like everyone is going to mount one. Cripes... I have enough problem trying to find a freaking Tach that is robust and accurate and affordable!!... let alone screw with a camera.

I'm not going to quit the sport because of this rule or the dumb DOT rule. I needed a new helmet anyway. But I am doggone sure going to voice my opinion.. as it represents the interests of the folks I race with. And, the vast majority of those folks NEVER go on Hydro-Racer or the APBA social site. They just pay their cash to APBA so that they can get another friggin APBA decal folded in-half which they S--tcan cause they can't use it.

Isn't it odd how we rarely if see NBRA members pissing and moaning? Meanwhile, APBA is busy knifing its members in the nuts with rules which should have been limited to an informative article/item of interest.. etc, in the Propeller.

I refuse to accept this kind of nonsense!

Alex

[STEVE FRENCH]

Can somebody please show me the notification showing that this helmet camera topic would be discussed at the national meeting? If there was no notification made to the membership prior to the meeting, how will I know to inform my regional representative about my opinion concerning the topic?

Jeff,

It was explained to me when I questioned the process that there is no obligation to inform the membership of any proposal agenda or outline of subjects proposed from a submission deadline before the meeting because there is no deadline. If timed right, a proposal can be heard or submitted with a recognized raise of the hand then and there. https://hydroracer.net/forums/showpos...0&postcount=22 We are obligated to attend and question and argue the proposal then and there.


Read the sentence in this by-law that I quoted bold, that allows anything to be proposed at the last minute of the meeting . Then re-read the sentences before it ;and see if it sounds contrary;

6.2.1. Association Meetings. Notices of Annual and Special Meetings of the members of the Association shall be sent by the Association to each person entitled to receive the same. Such notices shall be sent not less than two (2) weeks before Association Meetings. All notices of Annual Meetings for the Conduction of Business shall specify the business to be transacted at each meeting. However, this shall not be construed to preclude the introduction and transaction at an Annual Meeting of other business not so specified.

In my opinion, for what it's worth, that bold sentence eliminates the membership of any right to know ANY agenda because it eliminates any obligation to inform the membership what's coming to the table in proposals OR business before hand so you can contact our attending (for you) commissioners about your concerns or make plans to attend and be heard with your concerns of a proposal since you have no knowledge of it coming down the tracks.

Jeff, time it right, and propose anything at the last minute cause only you or a few others you consult, team, have special interest with, will know it's coming! Have a majority of those in your class on board with today's low member count.....and presto!

Would be interesting to know the percentage of proposals that have been passed that begin with a pre-meeting specified agenda and those that started out at the last minute at the meeting table ?
Back in the days before high speed communication, internet, and sites like this where all CAN be on board, it was easy to fly below the radar covert and without notice.
Back then, the only communication after the meeting was one-on-one through the grape vine, in the pits on the beach, or on the telephone.

Eliminate that sentence quoted bold in by-law 6.2.1. that allows unspecified agenda and the resulting confusion and discontent later when ballots are in our mail boxes and the fallowing unspecified, and un-muzzled quorum of posts here......

Or adopt this form which eliminates last minute proposals. Works for inboard.
http://www.apba.org/resources/2012-i...osal-form-4341

Or we can just stay muzzled and accept "It's worked in the past" and "It is what it is" .


"Hydro Whiner" 100N

[Dave M]

Rule Process

Steve is right, per APBA rules, the membership does not have a say so in ANY proposed rule by anyone. Only the safety person has the authority to adopt new safety measures and implement them mid season. They can be mandated effective immediately, or at any point in time. The general racing memebership is not involved in the process of safety rules. If they are, it is because someone involved with the safety folks let the general public now.

In the past some rules have been passed in the name of safety that in my opinion, had nothing to do with safety. A true safety rule to me, is one that not only affect me, but the others on the race course should that occur. I can protect myself in any way I see fit. I think some people within APBA have made a small effort to keep the membership informed on changes before they happen, but the one in charge is not in the information sharing business.

[jeff55v]

Thank you Steve and Dave for your help in answering my question. Your input confirms my own understanding of the process. So "safety" rules like the one we are discussing can get passed without the membership's prior knowledge? And after it gets passed, we can't complain about it?
Let's say for the sake of our discussion that I have a problem with the graphics that some people paint on the lower portion of their helmet. So if I were on this "safety" committee, I could propose eliminating the allowance for those graphics? Without any input (complaints) from any of the lowly common membership? If that's the process, that's fine. But I think I have every right to come onto this website and gripe about it. I paid my 2013 hydroracer membership.
Furthermore, the time I spend griping on this site does not take away from my promotional time. In fact, my helmet camera IS a promotional tool that was just taken away from me.
Ok my lunch break is over. Time for me to go make some money now.

[MGallagher]

Isn't there a PWC division also. This probably effects them more than us. This is a small safety measure that may save us money in the future. Promotional wise, we only need to have one video available to us anyway.

[BmJuby]

I know I don't race other than in vintage APBA events, but I am one of those people who has and is considering joining the sport in the next few years. What clued me into this? Going to races yes, but the tons and tons of helmet cams on the web that show the sport. Forget myself, I would think novices and other people in the sport would benefit from seeing a driver cam first hand. I've seen a lot of action in my own clubs over the years made similar to this. The don't have the bigger picture in mind; overall participation. If I were to race the first thing I would have done (besides the rules and regulations) would have been to use my GoPro on my helmet cam to promote the sport and (admittedly) show off to friends and family and get their interest. My two cents, but it appears from the opinions about this topic and the responses I've seen my thoughts are probably weighed as nothing. I'm not into creating drama, but some of these responses give me serious pause in taking the next step. Some might say good riddance and that's what's scary....

[mercguy]

promotional purposes????

if you guys think the camera is good for promotional purposes, then mount it on the boat..............much better viewing points and none of that head bobbing action when people have them on their helmets..................the coolest GoPro videos I have seen are when JDub mounted cameras on the rear of his PRO boat (showing the gearcase and prop action) and on the front of the boat.........same as the placing on the Unlimiteds............there is no point in having them on your helmets..........IMHO.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIh0j_qI30Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1xfePdftvk

[BmJuby]

That of course is your opinion and I respect it. So, we agree about the promotional purpose, but one is better than the other? It doesn't really work that way. If any sport is promoted positively it's a good thing, no? I personally believe the static cameras are boring and do not reflect what it is like to be in the boat, which for me, personally, is the whole point of the helmet video in the first place. I specifically search for the helmet cams and not the other on board cameras. If the point is for the video maker/driver to have a different view, then that's fine too, that's their right, and they can mount it on the boat. Either video is fine, but my personal preference is the helmet cam. So, there is a point in making a video on a helmet, it's to make a video from the view on a helmet...but either way, an opinion about video quality and which video taking method is "better to promote the sport" should not have anything to do with whether or not they are allowed in the first place, imho.

I also don't see how a helmet cam is more dangerous than a boat mounted one. There is boat to boat contact in races, it could break free even without boat to boat contact, so what really is the point? If it's safety, why are they allowed at all?

[johnml390]

Everyone has their own personal tastes when it comes to viewing. I much rather watch a driver with one mounted on their helmet because it makes me feel as if I am actually there. The view I normally see from any rig I drive. I've never been a big a fan of any other angle. (Other than footage from the shoreline.) But to each their own. If I end up at an APBA event... My cam just won't be used. But I shall continue to use mine the way I wish outside of APBA.

Check out my YouTube channel for all sorts of head bobbling action! ;D lol.
...as well as some shoreline footage.

http://www.youtube.com/johnmathews390


Literally my ONLY reason for posting on this was to shamelessly advertise my YouTube channel. Haha.

[HydroKyle93R]

Literally my ONLY reason for posting on this was to shamelessly advertise my YouTube channel. Haha.

You're awesome, dude!

[johnml390]

You're awesome, dude!

Dawww. Shucks! Lol.

Looking forward to getting to hangout again some day soon, dude!

[stockc]

I prefer the helmet view hands down...gonna miss it. It's been nice to see what's going on ahead of the 93R, as I'm only accustomed to seeing the action on the back side of that helmet.

No engineer here, but consider my theory. The "potential" 5-10 lbs. of force that "could" be imparted on the cervical spine, "if" the cam fails to release, "might" just reduce the overall severity of the impending impact. For instance, some of highest technological auto racing i.e. F1 and Indy cars are designed to basically disintegrate on impact to gradually dissipate the total force of the impact. This lessens the total end force that is imparted on the driver. I suggest the helmet cam "could" actually provide enhanced safety, and therefore be under consideration as mandatory safety equipment.

I've always wondered about the term "near-miss." Isn't a miss a miss? Aren't they really "near-hits"?

Ken

[Dave M]

Work Around

Figure out a mount to your head, with a flat bar hidden under the padding on the helmet, coming down, out and up to your head, without ever attaching to your helmet..... That would be a legal work around of the rule. Not endorsing this is any way, just saying.

Easy fix, attach it to your helemt and race for fun elsewhere. Personally, when I race against someone with a helemt cam on, ia lways smile and wave on my way around them... LOL. Of course maybe that is not legal in APBA either... I dunno. Prolly so.