Cycling abroad and relying on Nationwide travel insurance? You'll need to wear a helmet, or you won't be able to claim

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

I doubt Nationwide/the underwriters have massively different data from other comparable insurers. But I agree about the differing interpretation and positioning of the product - that has been my point all along. It will come down to things that you can't possibly know, and in that mix will be recent payouts, the current risk profile, the plans of the product manager(s) for travel insurance, and quite possibly personal biases and assumptions that don't have much to do with an understanding about the relative risks of cycling.

So you think it likely that an insurance company would introduce a rule that would lead to more injuries and therefore claims? My original point was that Nationwide cannot have found any evidence that bicycle helmets increase the risk of injury within the huge amount of data they have access to. Unless you believe that Nationwide are deliberately trying to make less money.

They wouldn't be the first business to make a catastrophic balls up. Hoover anyone?

I notice they no longer play in the motor insurance game. There must be a reason for this, perhaps they're not that good in the insurance game. The travel insurance is a part of the Flexi-plan charges and fixed. Reducing costs and payouts is a good way of increasing profits. go for the low hanging fruit I say. The vast majority of ignaorant car drivers will support it as there is already a belief that cyclist should already be wearing helmets. Which is as ridiculous as saying that we should have bells too.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

The argument that helmets increase the risk of injury is one that is often seen on these threads, Nationwide's decision suggests that the actuarial data available does not support that argument.

What it suggests to me is that they've put someone in charge of this area who is a helmet fanatic who hasn't looked at the data, or denies it, or is simply ignorant of the facts.   Since all the long term, large scale, scientific, reliable evidence shows that helmets do not reduce the risks of cycling, that seems a rather more likely explanation of Nationwide's behaviour.

burtthebike wrote:

What it suggests to me is that they've put someone in charge of this area who is a helmet fanatic who hasn't looked at the data, or denies it, or is simply ignorant of the facts.   Since all the long term, large scale, scientific, reliable evidence shows that helmets do not reduce the risks of cycling, that seems a rather more likely explanation of Nationwide's behaviour.

I've heard the helmet illuminati are also planning to buy up all the world's tin foil supplies.

Best get down Tesco quick, wouldn't want you to get a cold head.

Rich_cb wrote:

If you want to be pedantic about the phrasing it is safe to assume that Nationwide have analysed all of their data and concluded that helmet use does not raise the risk of injury.

They would not bring in a policy which would increase their exposure to risk so the fact they have introduced this policy indicates that, according to their analysis, helmet use does not increase risk of injury.

The argument that helmets increase the risk of injury is one that is often seen on these threads, Nationwide's decision suggests that the actuarial data available does not support that argument.

OK, now we're not so far away - on wording, at least.

So the actual issue is: why this break from the norm with Nationwide (or the underwriters)? Suggests to me a change in product differentiation rather than data, the latter being available to all insurance companies. If the data supported it, all insurance companies would do it and it wouldn't be news.

If that is the case, it's a product-based decision. I work in products for a bank: many decisions steer well clear of evidence.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

That's right, rich_cb - focus on the examples (which are often extreme in conversations, to highlight a point, yes?), because you know that's not my point.

My argument was to counter your assertion that 

"if there was evidence to suggest that wearing helmets increased your risk of death/serious injury then the last thing the insurance companies would be doing is introducing a compulsory use policy"

in relation to this article. One insurance company introducing a compulsory use policy does not, and never will, equate to there being data suggesting that's not what they should do.

If you read my reply I actually addressed your point. Insurance companies are very good at predicting risk for common events. Cycling injuries are a common event. It may only be one company at the moment but, as others have also pointed out, they will be making that decision based on data. They couldn't care less about the helmet debate. They only care about their bottom line. It's therefore safe to conclude that none of the data analysed by Nationwide shows an increased risk of injury with helmet use.

Rich_cb

"It's therefore safe to conclude that none of the data analysed by Nationwide shows an increased risk of injury with helmet use."

That's not safe to conclude. What is safe to conclude is that Nationwide has deduced that introducing this rule will reduce their likelihood of payout, and sizes of payout. You can't make inferences about any individual data sets from that conclusion. 

You are right though in that as a group, non- helmet wearing individuals may present higher risk of payout to the insurance companies, but this does not speak to the efficacy of helmets in any way whatsoever. 

bendertherobot wrote:

They've crunched all that data, and leave skiiing and snowboarding helmet free? (I can't find that in the policy)

It's there - they are required.  And for canoeing and rafting.

BarryBianchi wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

They've crunched all that data, and leave skiiing and snowboarding helmet free? (I can't find that in the policy)

It's there - they are required.  And for canoeing and rafting.

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/~/media/MainSite/documents/products/current-...

Can see the Canoe/Kayak but not the skiing?

JeevesBath wrote:

The people who wrote the policy probably couldn't care less about the pros/cons of the helmet debate.

As the insurer, they would be liable for the costs if you have an accident including brain injury. They are making a business decision to reduce their potential cost exposure. There's probably some analysis somewhere that shows holiday 'cyclists' (ie casual, non-regular cyclists jumping on a local hire bike after a few shandies) have more self-inflicted spills leading to minor injury than life threatening traffic accidents, so a helmet would potentially cut minor scrapes/concussions etc that would incur more expensive treatment. 

So there's the answer. No alcohol on holiday. That would probably save more as pissheads drive cars and have accidents too.

#Outrage

JeevesBath wrote:

The people who wrote the policy probably couldn't care less about the pros/cons of the helmet debate.

As the insurer, they would be liable for the costs if you have an accident including brain injury. They are making a business decision to reduce their potential cost exposure. There's probably some analysis somewhere that shows holiday 'cyclists' (ie casual, non-regular cyclists jumping on a local hire bike after a few shandies) have more self-inflicted spills leading to minor injury than life threatening traffic accidents, so a helmet would potentially cut minor scrapes/concussions etc that would incur more expensive treatment. 

What you said.

Hopping on a strange bike in a strange city with unfamiliar signs and rules, on the wrong side of the road, quite possibly with the brakes on the wrong sides (front brake left lever), no idea where you're going and questionable maintenance and you've got a recipe for disaster.

I still have chipped elbows and a scar on my finger from a hired mountain bike in Austria when the front wheel fell off because it wasn't put on properly and I got fired over the handlebars - the rest of the gravel rash on my hands, arms, chin, shoulder and knees healed up fine, but the ripped t-shirt ended up in the bin. Fortunately, the bike came with a helmet - it went back with a good scrape and dent in the front of it! Someone else in the party crashed into a barb wire fence when the saddle slipped - vague memory that a bolt had sheared.

I also once crashed a bike in Holland by forgetting it had a back-pedal brake - fortunately, it was low speed on a lawn and the only thing hurt was my pride.

And I'm a regular cyclist with a selection of different bikes!

Cycle tours seem to be increasing in popularity in many cities - maybe that's also had something to do with their decision.

LastBoyScout wrote:

JeevesBath wrote:

The people who wrote the policy probably couldn't care less about the pros/cons of the helmet debate.

As the insurer, they would be liable for the costs if you have an accident including brain injury. They are making a business decision to reduce their potential cost exposure. There's probably some analysis somewhere that shows holiday 'cyclists' (ie casual, non-regular cyclists jumping on a local hire bike after a few shandies) have more self-inflicted spills leading to minor injury than life threatening traffic accidents, so a helmet would potentially cut minor scrapes/concussions etc that would incur more expensive treatment. 

What you said.

Hopping on a strange bike in a strange city with unfamiliar signs and rules, on the wrong side of the road, quite possibly with the brakes on the wrong sides (front brake left lever), no idea where you're going and questionable maintenance and you've got a recipe for disaster.

I still have chipped elbows and a scar on my finger from a hired mountain bike in Austria when the front wheel fell off because it wasn't put on properly and I got fired over the handlebars - the rest of the gravel rash on my hands, arms, chin, shoulder and knees healed up fine, but the ripped t-shirt ended up in the bin. Fortunately, the bike came with a helmet - it went back with a good scrape and dent in the front of it! Someone else in the party crashed into a barb wire fence when the saddle slipped - vague memory that a bolt had sheared.

I also once crashed a bike in Holland by forgetting it had a back-pedal brake - fortunately, it was low speed on a lawn and the only thing hurt was my pride.

And I'm a regular cyclist with a selection of different bikes!

Cycle tours seem to be increasing in popularity in many cities - maybe that's also had something to do with their decision.

 

I fail to see how wearing or not wearing a helmet could have got you to have given the bike a quick once over before taking it out.  The helmet didn't save you, not checking the bike was the problem. A whole new argument starts up here about who is responsible for the condition of the bike, but it'd be nice to know that you insurance company has your back, con or sin helmet!

Hopefully you're fully healed now.

don simon wrote:

LastBoyScout wrote:

I still have chipped elbows and a scar on my finger from a hired mountain bike in Austria when the front wheel fell off because it wasn't put on properly and I got fired over the handlebars - the rest of the gravel rash on my hands, arms, chin, shoulder and knees healed up fine, but the ripped t-shirt ended up in the bin. Fortunately, the bike came with a helmet - it went back with a good scrape and dent in the front of it! Someone else in the party crashed into a barb wire fence when the saddle slipped - vague memory that a bolt had sheared.

 

I fail to see how wearing or not wearing a helmet could have got you to have given the bike a quick once over before taking it out.  The helmet didn't save you, not checking the bike was the problem. A whole new argument starts up here about who is responsible for the condition of the bike, but it'd be nice to know that you insurance company has your back, con or sin helmet!

Hopefully you're fully healed now.

I had checked the bike over for brakes, steering, gears and that the wheels were tight. What I hadn't noticed was that when the wheel had been installed, whoever did it hadn't engaged the hooks on the bent washers into the holes in the fork drop outs - so, when I pulled up on the bars at one point, I pulled the fork off the wheel.

Bit tricky to check for a bolt that's about to shear.

My point, however, was that riding an unfamiliar bike increases the risk of accidents.

The chipped elbows still get me if I lean on something at the wrong angle, but otherwise haven't caused me any grief.

LastBoyScout wrote:

don simon wrote:

LastBoyScout wrote:

I still have chipped elbows and a scar on my finger from a hired mountain bike in Austria when the front wheel fell off because it wasn't put on properly and I got fired over the handlebars - the rest of the gravel rash on my hands, arms, chin, shoulder and knees healed up fine, but the ripped t-shirt ended up in the bin. Fortunately, the bike came with a helmet - it went back with a good scrape and dent in the front of it! Someone else in the party crashed into a barb wire fence when the saddle slipped - vague memory that a bolt had sheared.

 

I fail to see how wearing or not wearing a helmet could have got you to have given the bike a quick once over before taking it out.  The helmet didn't save you, not checking the bike was the problem. A whole new argument starts up here about who is responsible for the condition of the bike, but it'd be nice to know that you insurance company has your back, con or sin helmet!

Hopefully you're fully healed now.

I had checked the bike over for brakes, steering, gears and that the wheels were tight. What I hadn't noticed was that when the wheel had been installed, whoever did it hadn't engaged the hooks on the bent washers into the holes in the fork drop outs - so, when I pulled up on the bars at one point, I pulled the fork off the wheel.

Bit tricky to check for a bolt that's about to shear.

My point, however, was that riding an unfamiliar bike increases the risk of accidents.

The chipped elbows still get me if I lean on something at the wrong angle, but otherwise haven't caused me any grief.

The point being that the wearing or not wearing a helmet should not have an effect on your insurer claiming against the hirer for hiring unsafe bikes, nor should it effect you claim for the elbow, new t-shirt, etc. But possibly for any head injuries suffered provided that they can prove that rotational injuries would not have occured.

We need to separate the helmet from risk of cyling accidents. They protect from some injuries, contribute to others, perpetuate the anticycling debate and put people off from taking up this wonderful activity.

JeevesBath wrote:

The people who wrote the policy probably couldn't care less about the pros/cons of the helmet debate.

As the insurer, they would be liable for the costs if you have an accident including brain injury. They are making a business decision to reduce their potential cost exposure. There's probably some analysis somewhere that shows holiday 'cyclists' (ie casual, non-regular cyclists jumping on a local hire bike after a few shandies) have more self-inflicted spills leading to minor injury than life threatening traffic accidents, so a helmet would potentially cut minor scrapes/concussions etc that would incur more expensive treatment. 

Actually, the evidence from bike hire schemes shows the opposite, and they are incredibly safe, and none of the successful ones have helmets provided or mandated.

BarryBianchi wrote:

And there's a heavy implication that you must use breathing apparatus if you are going scuba diving.  Tisk!

that is necessarily true, since SCUBA stands for self-contained underwater breathing apparatus...

ConcordeCX wrote:

that is necessarily true, since SCUBA stands for self-contained underwater breathing apparatus...

And what could be more self-contained that not using anything other than breath holding?  I bet more people have been killed and injured scuba diving with equipment than without.

BarryBianchi wrote:

And what could be more self-contained that not using anything other than breath holding?  I bet more people have been killed and injured scuba diving with equipment than without.

[/quote]

Quite right.  The helmet rule should apply to SCUBA diving obviously.

cyclisto wrote:

I always wear a helmet and encourage friends to do so, but I think it is very hypocritical to treat urban helmetless cycling as an overly dangerous activity so that you don't deserve to be insured when it is 100% legal. I am not a customer, but I urge fellow cyclists to stop paying such BS.

You always wear a helmet? What, watching TV, making the dinner, having a shower, on the toilet?

OldRidgeback wrote:

cyclisto wrote:

I always wear a helmet and encourage friends to do so, but I think it is very hypocritical to treat urban helmetless cycling as an overly dangerous activity so that you don't deserve to be insured when it is 100% legal. I am not a customer, but I urge fellow cyclists to stop paying such BS.

 

You always wear a helmet? What, watching TV, making the dinner, having a shower, on the toilet?

Probably a more pertinent question is whether a helmet is carried around on the off chance that bikes might be hired. This isn't about me either. Day trip to foreign city and the kids want to hire a bike and you know what. I forgot to bring a sack full of helmets. How do you tell the kids when the rest of the world is riding around without helmets that they can't ride a bike? Try and explain it to them logically and you won't be able to as there is no logic.

Are pedestrians asked to wear gloves in case they fall over and graze their hands?

Quote:

Probably a more pertinent question is whether a helmet is carried around on the off chance that bikes might be hired. This isn't about me either. Day trip to foreign city and the kids want to hire a bike and you know what. I forgot to bring a sack full of helmets. How do you tell the kids when the rest of the world is riding around without helmets that they can't ride a bike? Try and explain it to them logically and you won't be able to as there is no logic.

Are pedestrians asked to wear gloves in case they fall over and graze their hands?

This!

I just won't happen to have a helmet with me, it's not something I squeeze into my carry on luggage for a cheapo weekend in Amsterdam....

OldRidgeback wrote:

cyclisto wrote:

I always wear a helmet and encourage friends to do so, but I think it is very hypocritical to treat urban helmetless cycling as an overly dangerous activity so that you don't deserve to be insured when it is 100% legal. I am not a customer, but I urge fellow cyclists to stop paying such BS.

 

You always wear a helmet? What, watching TV, making the dinner, having a shower, on the toilet?

If he wears one for cycling, then surely he should wear them for the other activities you mention, which have a similar risk?  Apart from showering of course, which is much riskier and you should definitely wear a helmet for doing it.

Rich_cb wrote:

I don't really see the problem with this. Nationwide have crunched the numbers and decided that introducing this rule will save them money. That may be because their data suggests that helmets reduce injuries or because they'll be able to deny previously valid claims based on the new policy. The cynic in me thinks the latter is more likely. If their customers don't like it they are free to go elsewhere. If enough customers do so I'm sure they'll change their mind.

They should deny cover to people who fly on business if they fail to sacrifice a ram to the Great Lord Baal at least once in the week before flying.

There's strong evidence in favour of this proposition in that nobody who has made the sacrifice has ever been injured while flying on business. Conversely, nobody who has been injured has sacrificed a ram to Baal. This is irrefutable proof that making the correct sacrifice in the correct way to the correct wrathful lord is protection against injury while flying on business.

I commend this idea to the insurance world, and would accept a commission of 1% of the money saved.

[

They should deny cover to people who fly on business if they fail to sacrifice a ram to the Great Lord Baal at least once in the week before flying.

There's strong evidence in favour of this proposition in that nobody who has made the sacrifice has ever been injured while flying on business. Conversely, nobody who has been injured has sacrificed a ram to Baal. This is irrefutable proof that making the correct sacrifice in the correct way to the correct wrathful lord is protection against injury while flying on business.

[/quote]

And you know, there are some people who won't do the sacrifice! They won't! You can't talk to them...