They can become de facto compulsion if the condition becomes near universal, though. It’s not a legal requirement to wear a helmet in a car, but if every driver’s policy said you could only make an injury claim if you and your passengers were wearing them…

Well sure, but you’re into ‘whataboutery’ and ‘if’ territory now…

Putting the straw men to one side, this is one insurance provider applying a policy change, and like I said the thin end of a commercially driven wedge, not a legislative one…

As much as I am against the idea of legal helmet compulsion, dislike the mainstream media driven idea of their “defacto” compulsion and general overstatement of their efficacy, insurance companies can set almost any terms they like and customers can make their decision based on those terms, or simply shop elsewhere…

It’s a little on the hysterical side to equate this to actual compulsion… IMO of course.

Universal exclusions on travel insurance policies for accidents that happen after consuming alcohol have clearly had a massive effect.

Slightly different, not least because insurance policies allow you to consume alcohol, the exclusions are around excessive consumption leading directly to incidents. Nationwide’s exclusion is for claims “caused by” (not merely coincident with) drinking “so much alcohol that your judgement is seriously affected”.

So you can go out and drink without affecting any claims unless (as per my erroneous example above) you’re so drunk as to actually cause the incident.

Clearly, also, people’s judgement is gradually affected as they drink, therefore their judgement of their own level of judgement (as per the clause) is itself likely to be flawed.

The helmet condition is different. There’s no “moderate helmet wearing”, you’re either wearing one or you’re not, and if it states you must wear a helmet then this means your entire cover is invalid if you don’t.

So if someone loss control of a car an crashes into you, you can claim even if you’re blind drunk while walking along the pavement, but you’ll presumably not be covered if you’re stone cold sober and cycling along a shared path but not wearing a helmet.

Anyway, you know how virtually all charity rides require people to wear helmets? That’s largely a case of de facto compulsion through insurance.

Well sure, but you’re into ‘whataboutery’ and ‘if’ territory now…

Perhaps, but it’s best not to find out, otherwise it’s virtually impossible to go back.

insurance companies can set almost any terms they like and customers can make their decision based on those terms, or simply shop elsewhere…

Well, that’s exactly what people are telling Nationwide that they intend to do, largely on the basis that they want to vocally object to this clause becoming the thin end of any wedge, commercial or otherwise. What’s the problem?

The helmet condition is different. There’s no “moderate helmet wearing”, you’re either wearing one or you’re not, and if it states you must wear a helmet then this means your entire cover is invalid if you don’t.

So if someone loss control of a car an crashes into you, you can claim even if you’re blind drunk while walking along the pavement, but you’ll presumably not be covered if you’re stone cold sober and cycling along a shared path but not wearing a helmet.

But in the example you gave of cycling round Amsterdam why do you need insurance???

If a car hits you then it’s THEIR insurance and if your just pottering around your risk of something your fault that requires insurance is exceedingly low and no different to being at home. (Up until Brexit) you can walk into a A&E if you have a graze or break an arm or whatever (or hop in if its a broken leg)… so I’m missing how that’s different than you cycling round the corner at home to the newsagent or whatever is round your corner …. you don’t take insurance out for that do you???

The only way I see how this needs travel insurance is if you miss a plane or ferry … or you go to A&E and someone robs your hotel room.

Perhaps my perspective of Amsterdam or Copenhagen is different … having lived in various European countries and work in many… but I don’t even take travel insurance for European trips at all… when I lived in France a trip to Amsterdam or the Alps was jumping on a train … or in the car… no difference to me if it was French or Italian alps..

If I’m cycling in the Welsh borders I don’t feel like I need insurance and that doesn’t suddenly change as I cross the border …. I don’t think Oh bugger .. I can’t go into Hay on Wye for lunch I need travel insurance it’s a different country….

Cripes i used to cycle across the border 10′ into Wales every week day then back 10′ to the company .. and leaving I’d cycle though 10′ of Wales again…

You’ve driven to Amsterdam, hit the kerb whilst cycling, fall off and break your arm. Not a problem if you do that at home, a bit of a problem if you and your car are in Amsterdam.

Sure the chances of that happening are low, but then the chances of you needing travel insurance at all are low, which is why it can be offered free like this (I also have free travel insurance through my bank account – IIRC it would also cover me for cycling around Wales provided I was spending a night away from home).

if your just pottering around your risk of something your fault that requires insurance is exceedingly low and no different to being at home

But exceedingly low is not zero and if something unfortunate does happen then people generally want cover. Let’s say you get a wheel caught in a drain cover, fall, break your arm badly and need or want to travel home. It’d be nice not to have to pay for the unexpected costs suddenly incurred.

Edit: I see I got beaten to the same example 🙂

I don’t even take travel insurance for European trips at all

Which is fine, that’s your choice.

If I’m cycling in the Welsh borders I don’t feel like I need insurance and that doesn’t suddenly change as I cross the border …. I don’t think Oh bugger .. I can’t go into Hay on Wye for lunch I need travel insurance it’s a different country…

No, but that’s probably because in the context of your insurance (and just about every other context) it’s not a different country.

…it’s also notable that the vast majority of situations where you might need insurance following a cycling accident are ones where a helmet would make no difference. Neither me nor Bez instantly thought of hitting your head (and I certainly wasn’t deliberately ignoring that possibility).

I’m missing how that’s different than you cycling round the corner at home to the newsagent or whatever is round your corner …. you don’t take insurance out for that do you???

Well, I have private health insurance for me, contents insurance for the bike, and liability insurance should I hit anyone else.

So, yeah, I do.

The company that underwrites this policy also underwrites lots of car policies so would like you to wear a helmet or better still not cycle at all.

Anyone would think that wearing a helmet was hugely labour intensive.
I insist on wreckerjnr wearing a helmet because I’m not a shit parent, so naturally I wear one too. It’s not uncomfortable, in fact it’s a pretty good safety measure with no discernible drawbacks.
I suppose that doesn’t count for much if you’re pretending you’re in the 1970 TDF trying to look cool with one of those shit little caps on though.

The company that underwrites this policy also underwrites lots of car policies so would like you to wear a helmet or better still not cycle at all.

Total crap.
I’ve not worked in the industry for a while but when I left, the UK car insurance industry had mad a loss every year for the previous 15 years.
I think it made it to 21 or maybe 22 years of consecutive losses eventually, until a couple of years ago when there were some tiny profits made.

So in reality, the UK insurance industry would rather nobody drive cars at all.

Well apart from discouraging people from riding, messing up your hair if you’re riding your bike to a hot date, being a faff to carry around if you’re using your bike to ride somewhere…

I expect I’ve missed some, that list was just the first things I could think of.

Meanwhile see my link up there – no discernible drawbacks to wearing one in a car, so I presume you do, and also put one on mini wrecker?

You’re confusing loss ratios and profits.
Nobody forces a company to offer car insurance and they would stop pretty quickly if it wasnt profitable, as the poor ones do.
If you think they dont make money you dont understand the business.

I’m struggling to understand why this is an issue.

I presume you’ve not read anybody else’s contributions to this thread in your hurry to make your important point?

You’re confusing loss ratios and profits.
Nobody forces a company to offer car insurance and they would stop pretty quickly if it wasnt profitable, as the poor ones do.
If you think they dont make money you dont understand the business.

They offer car insurance as part of a portfolio of products.
The other products make money, the car insurance generally doesn’t/didn’t

Everyone (pretty much) has car insurance, so it’s a good way to build a customer base to sell your other, more profitable, products to.
And not offering it, forces otherwise loyal customers to shop with a competitor and risk a loss of other products at renewal.

I worked in sales strategy, so I do have a pretty good understanding of how this stuff works.

wrecker – Member

Anyone would think that wearing a helmet was hugely labour intensive.
I insist on wreckerjnr wearing a helmet because I’m not a shit parent, so naturally I wear one too. It’s not uncomfortable, in fact it’s a pretty good safety measure with no discernible drawbacks.

Increases risk of accidents, worsens the outcome of some accidents and provide no significant protective effect in high impact injuries. Cycle helmets are all about (false) perception of risk – not an effective safety measure.

The great news for those of you “struggling to understand why this is an issue” is that you can stop struggling and completely ignore the whole thing, because if you wear a helmet all the time then you’re free to make that choice regardless of this proposed change to insurance. Relax. Your struggle is over. No-one is asking for for your insurance to contain a “you must not wear a helmet” clause.

Bicycle Helmets and the law: a perfect teaching case for epidemiology.

Meanwhile see my link up there – no discernible drawbacks to wearing one in a car, so I presume you do, and also put one on mini wrecker?

Can you really not see any difference in risk between being on a bike and in a car? 😯
This thread has first world outrage written all over it.

in fact it’s a pretty good safety measure with no discernible drawbacks.

I’d say the chance of a neck injury must be increased when hitting the ground with a large object strapped to the head. Like this OTB resulting in paralysis.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/12854460.Wearing_a_cycle_helmet_saved_girl_apos_s_life/

A Glasgow study found that 61% of hospital head injury admissions were alcohol related. What about drinking helmets then? No drawbacks.

Can you really not see any difference in risk between being on a bike and in a car?

Of course I can – far more people die of head injuries which could have been prevented by a bike helmet in a car than they do when riding a bike.

Though in any case wearing a helmet in a car is a pretty good safety measure with no discernible drawbacks, I’m not sure why you would choose not to wear one.

Can you really not see any difference in risk between being on a bike and in a car?

What’s your point?

If any policy’s target is to reduce the public health cost of traumatic brain injury then you really want to start with car helmets, because around half of all such injuries happen there.

Insurance is more about individual risk, so that’s what matters here. But, for every mile travelled, the risk of traffic serious head injury in the UK (so that’s excluding pedestrian falls, which are a non-trivial issue at least in the case of the elderly) is not dramatically different whether you walk or cycle.

So, given that most people would consider it absurd to only insure people if they wore a helmet while walking anywhere abroad, the decision to apply that condition to cycling is worthy of question. And in several countries where this clause would apply, the risk of cycling head injury is significantly lower than it is in the UK.

To be honest there seems to be lass “outrage” from the people in the “if Nationwide stick to this policy then I’ll move my money elsewhere” camp than there is from the “only stupid people don’t use helmets (but this only applies to cycling)” camp, who seem to be here simply to bang on about how bothered they are that someone else is making a decision about where to put their money which doesn’t affect them in the slightest.

Anyway.

To paraphrase your question, can you really not see any difference in risk between these different ways of being on a bike?

Can you really not see any difference in risk between being on a bike and in a car?

I thought we’d already established the difference? Massively higher numbers of head injuries to car occupants than cyclists.
It is after all pretty comfortable to wear a helmet, why don’t you wear one in the car? Edit- is it because you wear a leather skull cap like some 1930s racer wannabe?
Most people talking about not wearing are thinking of popping to the shops or family pootles. I don’t want to risk my helmet being smashed to pieces by baggage handlers etc. just to let me do things that aren’t particularly risky without invalidating my insurance policy, which I will take out if I travel.
If I’m doing risky things like an uplifted MTB holiday, of course I’ll wear a helmet and accept shopping round for appropriate insurance, but this condition is just a pointless pita for anyone affected.

I insist on wreckerjnr wearing a helmet because I’m not a shit parent

If you’re not making him wear one in the car, are you not taking unnecessary chances with his safety? Surely you’d do anything you could to reduce his risk of injury?

I insist on wreckerjnr wearing a helmet because I’m not a shit parent

Full pressure suit and neck brace? surely this is essential?

Just out of interest, is there any actual data to back up the claims that wearing a bike helmet in a car would reduce the risk of head injury.

Just wondering, a genuine question.

Nice tag team effort guys

FWIW I wore a helmet to do a fast ride on a road bike yesterday. That’s the only “sport” ride I’ve done in the last few weeks, the rest of my cycling has been slow speed pottering or transport on easy off-road paths* and I haven’t worn a helmet.

It did also occur to me given wrecker’s mention of putting his kid in a helmet – this rule would also presumably apply to kids in bike trailers. So right there is another downside – I never put a helmet on my kids in a trailer because they were surrounded by a great big metal roll cage and strapped in with a 4 point harness (which worked – I rolled it once and mini aracer was totally unbothered), a helmet would have forced their heads forward and put a strain on their necks.

*on a unicycle – from what I can work out from the wording I wouldn’t be covered for riding that without a helmet despite there being no recorded instances of deaths on a unicycle which might have been prevented with one. And yes I would take a unicycle on a foreign holiday.

Scroll up neal – my post, top of the page

is there any actual data to back up the claims that wearing a bike helmet in a car would reduce the risk of head injury.

There must be or F1 drivers wouldn’t do it.

Scroll up neal – my post, top of the page

Missed that, cheers. Will have a read.

Nice tag team effort guys

YEAH HIGH FIVE SUPERTEAM! 🙄
Now back to WAAA I DON’T WANNA WEAR A HELMET IT MIGHT MESS UP MY HAIR WAAA
Wearing a helmet is a basic safety measure, much like wearing a seatbelt. Gabble on about helmets in cars if you really want to, but it’s not comparable and it’s nonsense (and I suspect you know as much).
Is the requirement to wear a seatbelt a barrier to driving?

Is this your sole point? To just moan about anyone who looks at a photo of people in the Netherlands riding to the shops and doesn’t immediately think they’re all idiots? By going “waa waa”?

You seem to have moved on from first-world outrage to first-year-at-school outrage 😉

Ridden in both Copenhagen and Amsterdam, can’t recall if a helmet was offered at rental (probably), but I didn’t wear one. Ridden in the US, and of course a helmet is expected at rental. Meanwhile back in the real cycling world, I’m surprised this is news. Their rules, their risk. Read the small print.

The TT picture is a little ironic; CTT don’t require a helmet in the UK. For BC events, it’s mandated 😉

From a part-time crash test dummy for Giro helmets.

aracer – Member

I presume you’ve not read anybody else’s contributions to this thread in your hurry to make your important point?

yes I totally ignored everything before my post which is why I wrote it. Its an insurance policy with a clause that says you have to wear a helmet. Arguing about it is pointless wither you agree with it or not.

Wrecker – if you deem a helmet essential for your kid why not a full pressure suit and a neck brace?

Its well proven that despite the small protective effect from cycle helmets that wearing them in cars would save a huge number more lives – read Goldacres rigorous analysis of the data that I linked to above

Is the requirement to wear a seatbelt a barrier to driving?

No. Because a seatbelt stays in the car and is really not noticeable in use. Furthermore, evidence shows that it doesn’t diminish participation in driving. Whereas evidence shows that helmets *do* diminish participation in cycling.

However, increased protection does lead people to take more risks. Look up John Adams’s research into casualty figures, which show that the introduction of seatbelt laws not only slowed a pre-existing decline in car occupant casualties, because drivers felt safer and were taking more risks, but also precipitated an increase in collision casualties among people outside by cars, who were now more likely to be hit by the better-protected drivers.

Similarly, several studies show risk compensation in helmeted cyclists, and one study avenue showed greater risk-taking among helmet wearers when simply sitting in front of a computer. When helmet laws were introduced in Australia and New Zealand there was a marked rise in casualty rate per mile travelled, and the most plausible explanation for the majority of this effect is essentially one of risk compensation: the people who stopped cycling were (of course) a significant subset of the ones who didn’t wear helmets, who happened to be the ones taking less risk and thus being less likely to suffer injury; the helmet wearers were unaffected by the laws and remained, but they were the ones who exposed themselves to greater risk.

This argument is as old as the hills:
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2014/01/06/the-brick-wall/

Anyway, you keep wearing a helmet. No-one has a problem with that. Seriously.

No, I don’t know that at all – as pointed out numerous times, the only way it isn’t comparable is that the benefits to society of helmets in cars are higher than that for helmets on bikes. I presume at some point you’re going to present your evidence for why you think differently?

Is the requirement to wear a seatbelt a barrier to driving?

No, because none of the downsides I mentioned to helmets on bikes apply to seatbelts in cars. It would also take a lot more than that to put people off driving because it’s “so convenient”.

Their rules, their risk. Read the small print.

Yeah. We all get this. The flipside is: their customers, their revenue.

This is how the market works: if people don’t like something they buy something else. That’s all that’s happening here. The pro-helmet folks seem to be upset about this for some reason, despite repeatedly reminding us all that this is how it works.

You’ve driven to Amsterdam, hit the kerb whilst cycling, fall off and break your arm. Not a problem if you do that at home, a bit of a problem if you and your car are in Amsterdam.

Sure the chances of that happening are low, but then the chances of you needing travel insurance at all are low, which is why it can be offered free like this (I also have free travel insurance through my bank account – IIRC it would also cover me for cycling around Wales provided I was spending a night away from home).
But surely that is your car breakdown/roadside insurance (or if you need a specific Europe extension to it for Holland vs Wales???

Or are you saying your travel insurance includes getting your car back if you can’t drive ???
(genuine question)

I’ve only ever looked at flights/rail/ferry etc. on any travel insurance … and not actually looked to see if it includes returning the car …. so on our usual drive to the South of France I usually pay the £20 or something like that for extending my breakdown cover… and my actual car insurance doesn’t need extending…