I would also recommend a camera on the helmet rather than the handlebars for the reasons already stated by others. A handlebar mounted camera restricts the video to the vehicle's forward view. You are likely to be looking at whatever may endanger you, and a head mount may then capture what you see on video.
Originally Posted by
canklecat
Keep in mind that, depending on your state laws, liability may be limited to whatever your state's minimum liability insurance covers. This may be nowhere near the actual cost of the injuries and property damage. Unless the responsible party has deep pockets or was working for a business (presumed to have deep pockets), you may still bear the burden of most or all costs for an accident and injury that you didn't cause. So, again, why not go for the video camera as a buffer, especially if you're responsible for a family? Just makes good financial sense from that perspective.
If you own an automobile and carry insurance for it, then you may file a claim with your own insurance provider. In this way, you may recover further damages if the responsible party has inadequate or no insurance, or in the event of a hit-and-run. For this reason, it makes sense to evaluate your insurance policy to determine what level of protection you desire and wish to pay for.
I was the victim of a hit-and-run somewhat recently, and the suspect was never identified. I filed a claim with my own auto insurance policy, and have been able to recover damages using the Personal Injury Protection and Uninsured/Under Insured Motorist portions of my policy, both of which I had increased above the minimum. Like you said, video evidence was instrumental for the police report and the insurance claim settlement.