I just saw a bloke walk out of Evans in Brighton wearing a helmet and carry on down the road with no apparent intention of removing it.

The message “all the time, every time” is beginning to have results – keep at it helmet advocates!

Fair enough steve, it was a bad example.

So you’ve flown to Amsterdam, break your leg and can’t fit in a normal seat for your flight home (which is fully booked, so no chance of just getting an extra seat).

tjagain – Member

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

can’t fit in a normal seat for your flight home

Hey, that’s a normal flight for me 🙂

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

I have no quarrel with you Teej. The chances of him breaking his neck or spine are significantly less that of his smashing his head. Do you truly, honestly feel that having my 3 year old wear a helmet is a waste of time? Do you feel that you need to/should be obliged to wear a helmet on your motorcycle?
You are more sensible than that.

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.

So you’re saying that cyclists are not vulnerable road users?
I fail to see what is inconvenient about putting a helmet on. People wear hats for fun.
It’s no skin off my nose if people don’t wear helmets, it’s their life but an insurer stipulating that the insured carry out basic safety measures seems very fair to me.

I’ll check back later, but I don’t think I’ve said that.

I fail to see what is inconvenient about putting a helmet on.

Apart from the reasons I’ve given you’re ignoring? Though if you don’t think it’s at all inconvenient, what is your reason for not wearing one in a car?

an insurer stipulating that the insured carry out basic safety measures seems very fair to me.

So an insurer stipulating helmets (and hi viz) for walking would also be fair?

Wrecker – how do you know that his chance of having a head injury is much higher than that of a neck or major limb injury? Or do you mean the consequences are more serious?

The point I am making is you seem take it as granted being a good parent = making your child wear a helmet and that this is self evidently true. Unfortunately this is not supported by the evidence. From my understanding of the stats life changing spinal or major limb injuries are of a similar level of incidence to life changing head injuries. All fortunatly are very rare indeed.

There is also the point that helmets actually offer little protection from life changing head injuries ( they can’t absorb that much energy)(very good at preventing minor injury) and can in some circumstances make a crashes outcome worse and in some circumstances increase the risk of crashing.

Its a much more nuanced and multifactorial debate than your statement

This seems to sum up wrecker’s stance. I’m not sure he’s interested in real evidence.

Interesting reading!! Personally I feel naked if not wearing a helmet on a bike. Since I was about 8 or 9 (many many many years ago) I have been wearing one. Has it saved my ass (or head) on the road….well TBH no it hasn’t as I have never had a big fall on the road. But I don’t trust road users to not pull out in front of me or turn into me. Hit your hit on the road without a helmet and you will know about it…with a helmet, you will still know about it but the chances are it will be a lot less severe. That’s pretty much a given. Basically, I trust my riding but not the others around me! Much like skiing.

I fail to see what is inconvenient about putting a helmet on. People wear hats for fun.

That’s funny as you dismissed the reasons for it being inconvenient as waa waa etc just minutes ago.
If I wanted to take a helmet on holiday, as I said earlier, I’d have to take it with me then take it everywhere I might want to ride a bike. And one for each child.
It would make more of a difference to put a helmet on In the car, which you quite rightly dismiss as ridiculous. 3 year olds wearing a helmet is great, they feel safer and will get the hang of biking quicker I would hope. But it’s not really proportional to the risks outside of cycle or motor sports. Even in Motorsports it’s not always required where the risk is low.

Funny, when I had my crash last week I wasn’t wearing a helmet. Wish I had been – not so that I could’ve claimed on my insurance, but cos it bleedin hurt me ead.

an insurer stipulating that the insured carry out basic safety measures seems very fair to me

Just because something seems fair, OK or reasonable to you or anyone else, does not make it so.

As others have pointed out, there is not a compelling scientific/statistical evidence base for compulsory helmets, and it is that which needs to inform and influence decisions about making them compulsory, especially legally compulsory. If collectively we are just doing to base important decisions on how things seem to us, or on our own personal prejudices, then we will make bad/sub-optimal decisions.

The Nationwide is a business and this is, on the face of it, purely a commercial decision by one business, and the nature of competition and the free market should mean that if it is a bad decision, then people can take their business elsewhere.

However, I don’t think it is quite as simple as that. As has been pointed out above, the underwriter used by Nationwide makes no such requirement in the policies it underwrites for NatWest, Lloyds and TSB.

Changes to the terms of the policy will have been discussed and negotiated between Nationwide and the underwriter as part of the overall deal and the price Nationwide pays them for the cover. I very much doubt that this exclusion would have reduced the price, because although a cycling accident has the potential to result in a large medical expenses and repatriation claim, such claims are so infrequent that the wearing or not wearing of a helmet would be unlikely to make it worth it to the underwriter to offer Nationwide any significant reduction in the price for this exclusion.

That makes me suspect that this decision has been driven by one or more individuals in Nationwide, or possibly the insurer, with a personal bee in their bonnet about cyclists not wearing helmets. If so, they should get their knuckles wrapped by their superiors for letting personal beliefs influence business decisions they are entrusted to take for the organisation.

To go back to the OP – its really a very minor thing considering I never take out holiday insurance. Its simply not needed for Europe

It’s no skin off my nose if people don’t wear helmets,

But I thought you were saying people who didn’t make their kids wear helmets were shit parents? That sounds like your nose is a wee bit skinned?

It’s no skin off my nose if people don’t wear helmets,

Never seen a helmet with a nose guard 😉

Fair enough steve, it was a bad example.

So you’ve flown to Amsterdam, break your leg and can’t fit in a normal seat for your flight home (which is fully booked, so no chance of just getting an extra seat).

See his is where I agree with …tjagain

To go back to the OP – its really a very minor thing considering I never take out holiday insurance. Its simply not needed for Europe

I’d either get a different flight, ask the airline for being moved or get the train .. (from Amsterdam)
I know that’s specific .. but I’ve never had a medical issue in Europe i couldn’t get round …

In the same way I was miles away in Southampton 2 weekends ago and broke my arm .. but managed to get the car back. I could theoretically have called the RAC and waited (until every lone woman in the country got assistance) or grin and bear it and drive…

I had a similar in Norway where I had a torn meniscus and had a 4 or so drive back to Oslo .. but I could also have found other ways … I guess worst case paying for a tow or paying the hire company one way and getting a lift but its not like being in the US where it might be tens of thousands.

Holiday insurance might be worth having (in Europe) if all your belongings get nicked or you cancel etc. but nothing like a broken leg is expensive enough to make me want to fill out forms.

But at the end of the day even if I had insurance (which is possibly a benefit I didn’t bother activating on my bank account) it wouldn’t make a ecap of difference to me wearing helmet or not …

At home riding to the newsagents round the corner or in somewhere-sur-mur to the beach….

tjagain – Member

To go back to the OP – its really a very minor thing considering I never take out holiday insurance. Its simply not needed for Europe

doesn’t cover dental treatment or prescriptions while some countries require payment upfront then you claim it back. It also won’t cover repatriation or mountain rescue. Also not all medical centres are state run or provide state benefits. France for example has private hospitals that provide state care but you have to pay a hospital a day rate for being there and a 20%co-payment towards treatment.

It doesn’t cover San Marino, Monaco or the Vatican.

What a hero you are stevextc! I wish I was you.

Unfortunately for us mere mortals, some of those incidents are a trifle more bothersome and we might like to have insurance to mitigate the financial impact. Insurance which would be invalidated simply by not remembering to wear a helmet for a low risk activity.

Mountain rescue is covered outside of some ski uplift areas and even then often is even if you are skiiing or biking. Prescriptions are cheap. Hospital care is coverd to the same level as the locals get. Repatriation is the only thing thats not covered if you can’t get into a normal plane seat. so you wait until you can.

Hospital care is only covered if its a state hospital and if its a private one that does state care you have to pay upfront. I personally don’t have the kind of cash required for that so spending a tiny amount of travel insurance is a no brainer for peace of mind. My dad didn’t do it cause he though the same as you and hey ho I broke my arm in France and my dad had to pay upfront.

I’ve not been following this thread so sorry if it’s already been said, but I have this free insurance with Nationwide and it doesn’t cover Mountain Biking anyway, unless you pay an extra supplement for high risk activities. I have done this but not this year and I think it was something like £40 for the year we needed it. I would expect it to stipulate that helmets are worn, but I’ve not checked.

I’ve not been following this thread … it doesn’t cover Mountain Biking anyway

You’ll have missed the post on page 1 saying “throwing yourself down a rocky mountainside is not the only form of cycling” then 😉

I’m going to do the normal thing and ignore most of the above posts and randomly jump on something I don’t like.
I don’t think that motorcycle helmets or seat belts should be compulsory either. You chose the risks you take. Not wearing them affects you only.
Yes it may impact your family but you chose that. Yes it may impact emergency service staff through trauma but that’s the deal in that job. Yes you may add to the NHS bill but so do fatties or smokers or MTBers who need a meat wagon.
Back to the point of the original post, I would have a nasty suspicion that even if you didn’t damage your head but, say, broke your wrist the insurers would wiggle out of paying if they found out that you were helmetless at the time.

Stevextc By driving a vehicle with a broken arm you may well find that you were effectively nullifying your car insurance. Likelihood of a problem whilst in pain quite small but increased compared to driving intact, Likelihood of problems escalating if you had been involved in an accident, quite high.

Holiday insurance might be worth having (in Europe) if all your belongings get nicked or you cancel etc. but nothing like a broken leg is expensive enough to make me want to fill out forms.

Needed some travel insurance for a trip in a couple of weeks, so just for a laugh I timed it.

Done on my phone, It took 2 minutes 29 seconds in total.
from typing in “compare travel insurance” in to google, to clicking “pay now”
And I had no saved details or stored info on my phone.

And it cost £5.25 for the week (Europe)

Hardly a task that needs to be avoided is it 🙄

But how long would it have taken with a broken arm? 😉

😉
🙄
😉
🙄
😐
😉
🙄

@nglover.. So hardly “total crap” then.

Motor insurance is fairly balanced in terms of claims vs premiums but overall the business of insuring UK motorists is quite profitable.

This is a toe in the water towards a de facto compulsory helmet rule by the UK’s biggest motor insurer.

If anyone has any sense they should vote with their wallets.

I emailed Nationwide Building Society today to ask why this exclusion had been introduced, and received the following reply:

Whilst we accept an individual’s choice to wear a helmet or not, we feel the requirement to wear a helmet whilst cycling is a responsible approach to encourage safe cycling for our members. This change is purely for the safety of our members.

Although, if a customer was not wearing a helmet, but the injury suffered is unrelated to not wearing a helmet we would consider the claim and we will always apply a fair and reasonable approach.

So, this was not a commercial decision imposed by the Underwriters or taken to reduce the price Nationwide pay for the cover, but a paternalistic attempt to influence/restrict people’s behaviour.

I have replied pointing out the very limited scientific/statistical evidence in favour of compulsory helmet wearing, referring them the information published by Cycling UK at http://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets, and have asked them to quote the evidence for their decision.

It looks like Nationwide’s action stems from the cultural values associated with its being a mutual society which was established and exists solely to act in the interests of its members. Unfortunately in this case the desire to ‘look after’ its members has led it to overreach its responsibility.

As Nationwide has noted, the exclusion also applies even if the injury is totally unrelated to whether or not a helmet is worn. They say that in those circumstances they would apply a fair and reasonable approach (although such a decision may rest with the Underwriters rather than Nationwide), but the point of insurance is ‘peace of mind’, which means knowing that you are covered (rather than uncertainty regarding whether the insurer would waive the exclusion).

Given that there is evidently no commercial reason for this exclusion, I think it is a very bad decision on their part. It is very easy to imagine scenarios in which the application of this exclusion is clearly going to be wholly unnecesarily detrimental to members, to an extent that far outweighs the inadequately proven benefits of compulsory helmet wearing.

NB I’ve posted this on both Singletrackworld and the Cycling UK forum, since there are threads about this running on both forums, and I think it’s important that people are aware of the grounds for this decision by Nationwide.

Its reduced cover, there are no circumstances that can be in the interest of their customers.

To be pedantic, It is reduced cover for those members who chose not to wear a helmet. For those members (including me) who would wear a helmet as a matter of course, it hasn’t.

I am not condoning the change by the way.

So to be actually pedantic..its not reduced for you but is reduced for others and since its not increased for a third group its reduced cover.

TBH It could quite easily be a couple of product and relationship managers who dont know wtf their doing.

Stevextc By driving a vehicle with a broken arm you may well find that you were effectively nullifying your car insurance. Likelihood of a problem whilst in pain quite small but increased compared to driving intact, Likelihood of problems escalating if you had been involved in an accident, quite high.

I’m not a doctor (of medicine at least) so I’m not qualified to decide if it’s broken or not …
The following day I went to the walk in and got it x-ray’d and then found out it was broken so then I stopped driving.

But I’m interested as to what others would do … Me and kid 1.5 hours drive plus from home and i have work next morning and kid has school?

I mean I could have cycled to the train station and left the car in Southampton and got a train most of the way home but then my car is miles away and would have got a ticket come Monday morning?? (Are the insurance going to pay parking fines or fines for the kid being late / missing school???)

I guess I could call an ambulance and go to Southampton A&E and spend half the night there with the kid being stuck in A&E for half the night ???

Call the RAC to collect my car and take it home ???

or put up with a bit of discomfort and get my kid and car home???

Needed some travel insurance for a trip in a couple of weeks, so just for a laugh I timed it.

Done on my phone, It took 2 minutes 29 seconds in total.
from typing in “compare travel insurance” in to google, to clicking “pay now”
And I had no saved details or stored info on my phone.

And it cost £5.25 for the week (Europe)

Hardly a task that needs to be avoided is it

and the point is what ???

I can give you my paypal account and you can deposit £5.25 in it if you like… shouldn’t take more than 2mins and 29 seconds …. only difference is I’m not pretending you’ll get anything out of the transaction.

or are you assuming that if/when you need to make a claim you can do that in 2 min 29 seconds on your phone?

I’m sure the insurers are quite happy to take your money … and make the process as quick and easy as possible.

If/When you want to claim I would expect they do the entire opposite and make it as hard/long as possible…

If/When you want to claim I would expect they do the entire opposite and make it as hard/long as possible…

Funnily enough NatWest travel insurance had been very easy to claim on for us (well, my wife). One phone call, no forms, no need to send receipts.

That’s exactly what I would have done – I got the AA to relay me and my car home once when I was injured (though admittedly I couldn’t drive at all – I’d injured my groin and physically couldn’t lift my left foot off the floor to operate the clutch). I’m not sure why that wasn’t an obvious option for you.

That’s exactly what I would have done – I got the AA to relay me and my car home once when I was injured (though admittedly I couldn’t drive at all – I’d injured my groin and physically couldn’t lift my left foot off the floor to operate the clutch). I’m not sure why that wasn’t an obvious option for you.

Well it wasn’t “obvious” just because I could actually drive (sticking the frames on the back seat was more painful)… if I really couldn’t drive that would have been an option …

Funnily enough NatWest travel insurance had been very easy to claim on for us (well, my wife). One phone call, no forms, no need to send receipts.

I had a nightmare just getting it free and was attached to a specific CC …. I filled out a form (or my private banker did and I signed) but since I had been on antibiotics in last 2 years due to an eye infection (or however long) they then sent me a whole load of questions by post.

I just couldn’t be bothered answering them. Especially as I had to contact the doctor to get the name of the antibiotics etc. I’ve got a very low tolerance for those sort of questions….

I might even have it now with my Black Account …and I guess i if I had I could have claimed the £50 when I had to change a flight last month .but.. it’s just too much hassle.

The free phone insurance has been used though ….and I’ve been pleasantly surprised ..