[Closed] HWDTY? Nationwide introduces helmet compulsion for cycle travel insurance

Their coverage, thier risk, their money their choice.
You can do what you want.

^This.

You can't really blame an insurer for stipulating a condition. You're free to use another insurer if you don't like their decision. TBH, I'd think any adventure-sport insurer would also mandate appropriate safety gear as mountain biking is inherently a dangerous sport, just like climbing or jumping off things.

Not so sure about road or cycle touring insurance as I've never looked into them, but personally I'd always choose a helmet anyway.

People take out cycling insurance? Muppets.

From the linked article...

Nationwide has introduced a helmet compulsion clause to its travel insurance for FlexPlus customers – from 21st September account holders will have to wear helmets when cycling on holiday.

The new clause says: “Cycling, including on bridle paths and forest roads … Helmet must be worn.”

FlexPlus is a banking current account with added benefits, including travel insurance.

The FlexPlus travel insurance is underwritten by UK Insurance Ltd. which also underwrites travel insurance policies for NatWest, Lloyds and TSB – these policies do not contain the "Helmet must be worn" clause.

It's free travel insurance so I suppose they can do what they like. I have this account and usually wear a helmet so it's not really a problem.

them trails round the back of the office are serious gnar tho.

If you're riding somewhere outside the UK and don't want to chance needing to deal with the costs of airlifting off a mountain, associated healthcare and getting you back to a UK hospital then the few quid it costs can sound like a good choice.

In the UK, I'd think it's more about income protection for people that can't afford to be off work due to injury - anyone self employed for instance - less of a compelling case for many, but of great interest to any self employed people with families!

Edit having seen the above clause now: I can sort of see that bridlepath cycling etc might raise eyebrows for some as it's probably not a very risky activity, but it's still not exactly a huge deal. Alternatively, if it's so safe then why is anyone concerned that their choice not to wear a helmet will result in them being uninsured?

Standard on policies from Australasia for several years.

5thElefant - Member
People take out cycling insurance? Muppets.

I have this account. be interested to see what is included/ excluded as when i looked (pre recent changes) it seemed to exclude anything that i'd deem proper cycling anyway.

I can't remember the wording that led me to that conclusion.

they sent me some junk mail trying to entice me to sign up for an account last week. I regret even less now that it went in the bin.

Alternatively, if it's so safe then why is anyone concerned that their choice not to wear a helmet will result in them being uninsured?

I think it's probably the same arguments as any other helmet compulsion debate - if you compel people to wear helmets, fewer will ride, resulting in less safe conditions for those that do.

It's unlikely anyone providing illness cover as well as accident cover would include a helmet clause for general cycling, as they will have a fairly good understanding of the overall statistics. And it sounds like the underwriters in this case have not taken the decision, the bank have (for some - probably ill-guided - reason). It would be a lot more effective if they put a provision that helmets had to be worn whilst driving a car, or climbing a step ladder, or using stairs, for instance.

It is a get out clause for not paying out claims, it has nothing to do with cycling safety or compulsion to wear helmets really, other than they know they can get away with it because of perception of helmet wearing while cycling.

Little bit off topic...but...I'm surprised that helmets are not compulsory in the UK. They have been compulsory (on the road) in NZ for about 20 years and the cops will give you a fine if caught without one! I know my helmet has saved my head many times on off road stacks over the years.

I'm struggling to light my fires of righteous indignation to be honest.

[i]I'm surprised that helmets are not compulsory in the UK. They have been compulsory (on the road) in NZ for about 20 years and the cops will give you a fine if caught without one![/i]

because for populations as a whole helmet compulsion actually leads to worse outcomes?

because in Australia they've been used as a way of reducing cycling numbers to feed a reliance on cars in cities?

all sorts of reasons but let's not make this thread *another* helmet debate...

back to the OP - I can see that if you were visiting a major city and planning on using their bike hire scheme to get around then a helmet compulsion would make it awkward. And in the Netherlands people would laugh at you, obvs.

It is a get out clause for not paying out claims, it has nothing to do with cycling safety

I'm surprised that helmets are not compulsory in the UK. They have been compulsory (on the road) in NZ for about 20 years and the cops will give you a fine if caught without one! I know my helmet has saved my head many times on off road stacks over the years.

Edit having seen the above clause now: I can sort of see that bridlepath cycling etc might raise eyebrows for some as it's probably not a very risky activity, but it's still not exactly a huge deal. Alternatively, if it's so safe then why is anyone concerned that their choice not to wear a helmet will result in them being uninsured?

Agre but I'd go a step further ....
If its not risky that why would someone worry they're not insured???

I think it's probably the same arguments as any other helmet compulsion debate - if you compel people to wear helmets, fewer will ride, resulting in less safe conditions for those that do.

No-one is compelled (obviously unless visiting somewhere it is a legal requirement) you are just not insured. If you view it as zero risk then why would that bother you ??

If its not zero risk then .. well it's not zero risk is it.

Disclaimer.... I always wear a helmet on single track or bike parks anyway ... I have been known not to on short trips into town or such... if I don't have the kid with me. That's my choice but if I end up with a fractured skull it's also my choice and shouldn't be an insurers problem.

Incidentally, I currently have a broken arm from a low risk ride.... just a blast through Southampton bike park with the 7yr old who I was actually following at the time and not on any of the big jumps.
I just decided to jump between two parallel tracks .. long grass and a hole about 1' deep by 27.6" long hidden in the grass.... (Front wheel actually needed pulling out of the hole) I was wearing a helmet though 😀

Nationwide seem to be indicating via Twitter that they're responding to this. Hopefully there'll be a change of stance.

People take out cycling insurance? Muppets.

This is generic travel insurance. So if you're on holiday and, say, you hire a bike to ride down to the beach and something happens (and, at a guess, that's probably not solely head injuries but any injury), you're only covered if you wear a helmet. Whereas if the same thing happens if you walk down to the beach you're fine.

Alternatively, if it's so safe then why is anyone concerned that their choice not to wear a helmet will result in them being uninsured?

Agre but I'd go a step further ....
If its not risky that why would someone worry they're not insured??

There's no such thing as "not risky". It's just that objectively neither the base risk nor the mitigating effect of a polystyrene helmet are actually as big as helmet marketing, mainstream journalism etc would have you believe.

Most people would think that travelling in a car full of airbags isn't very risky, but around half of all traumatic brain injuries occur inside one. There'd be an uproar if insurers demanded helmets inside cars, even though the vast majority of travellers manage to travel by car without sustaining a head injury.

Similarly, figures suggest that walking has a not dissimilar per-mile rate of head injury to cycling, and most people would say walking isn't very risky. Again there would be an uproar if insurers demanded helmets all the time you were abroad.

If its not zero risk then .. well it's not zero risk is it.

Nothing's zero risk. It's not zero risk without a helmet. It's not zero risk [i]with[/i] a helmet. It's not zero risk if you abandon the bicycle and set off on foot.

People don't, on the whole, object to risk based insurance restrictions. This seems fairly arbitary - the same underwriter makes no such requirements on their othee policies.

Also;

[img] [/img]

(clearly some adjustment needs to be made based on participation)

This is generic travel insurance. So if you're on holiday and, say, you hire a bike to ride down to the beach and something happens (and, at a guess, that's probably not solely head injuries but any injury), you're only covered if you wear a helmet. Whereas if the same thing happens if you walk down to the beach you're fine.

Yes but you are not covered (presumably as i haven't read the policy) for downhill skiing, bungee jumping, white water rafting etc. etc.

In other words the alternative is they probably simplify this and to the list of exclusions and say "does not cover cycling"

Now they are saying have an accident cycling to the beach without a helmet and you're not covered
Instead they can just say if you are cycling you are not covered.

If you don't want the "free insurance" you don't need to pay for it.

Yes but you are not covered (presumably as i haven't read the policy) for downhill skiing, bungee jumping, white water rafting etc. etc.

Those things are comparable to throwing yourself down the black runs at Morzine but have nothing whatsoever to do with hiring a bike to potter round Amsterdam, beach-hop round a Greek island or take the kids along a French voie verte.

If you don't want the "free insurance" you don't need to pay for it.

But, aside from the fact that it's not free and you do of course pay for it, it's insidious. Even if it's currently "just" a case of someone having to pay out for a second (possibly even specialist) policy just to ride round Amsterdam like the residents do, gradually it creeps in to other insurance policies and before you know it there's no option to be insured unless you wear a helmet even where there's no greater risk than for walking. People who are hiring bikes in places where both helmets and head injuries are rarities will find out that they unexpectedly have no comeback for an incident which was highly unlikely and someone else's fault; whilst people who go out to Magaluf, get themselves blind drunk and not entirely unforeseeably crack their head open falling down some stairs are probably perfectly well covered, simply because getting blind drunk is seen as a perfectly normal thing to do, and anything that befalls you whilst blind drunk is just unlucky, whilst getting on a bicycle is seen as eccentric and dangerous, and anything that befalls you while you're on two wheels is your own stupid fault for doing something weird.

TBH I would have just assumed that no travel insurance policy would cover you for riding without a helmet.

When I was looking at travel insurance for a trip to New Zealand that would include a week's bikepacking on mostly gentle trails, I found that even with a major insurance company (LV I think), with the "adventure sports" (or whatever) add-on, mountain biking was only covered if guided. I presume I could have got a separate specialist policy but I just didn't bother.

I know this is the STW forum, but throwing yourself down a rocky mountainside is not the only form of cycling. You wouldn't expect your travel insurance to expect you to wear a helmet and a harness to go for a morning jog near your hotel just because your personal idea of a walking holiday mostly involves via ferrata.

Those things are comparable to throwing yourself down the black runs at Morzine but have nothing whatsoever to do with hiring a bike to potter round Amsterdam, beach-hop round a Greek island or take the kids along a French voie verte.

Ski-ing can be the same as the bike to the beach....
I don't consider the ski from hotel to lift to be high risk for example but I'm sure a insurance policy that excludes skiing would.

The point though as I said earlier is if riding a bike round Amsterdam is low risk then how does that affect you ?

Gradually it creeps in to other insurance policies and before you know it there's no option to be insured unless you wear a helmet even where there's no greater risk than for walking. People who are hiring bikes in places where both helmets and head injuries are rarities will find out that when they unexpectedly have no comeback for an incident which was highly unlikely and someone else's fault; whilst people who go out to Magaluf, get themselves blind drunk and not entirely unforeseeably crack their head open falling down some stairs are probably perfectly well covered.

If it was a policy you were paying for then I'd find the latter more a better reason.
Why am I paying for a insurance policy that covers me to go and drink 12 pints, pop a load of pills then climb up a clock tower with no trousers on? (before not entirely unforeseeably crack their head open falling)

Personally I'd prefer to pay for a policy with some added benefits with restrictions around not getting blind drunk and injuring myself

Personally I'd prefer to pay for a policy with some added benefits with restrictions around not getting blind drunk and injuring myself

On our last foreign holiday, we went on a guided ride without helmets. It was probably the first ever time the kids have ridden without helmets. The difference was, it was Copenhagen. Almost nobody there wears helmets, bike use is massive and there are statistically very few head injuries. But the mode and manner of cycling is very different.

know this is the STW forum, but throwing yourself down a rocky mountainside is not the only form of cycling

Exactly. I recently went to Amsterdam and rode a bike while not wearing a helmet.

This:
[img] [/img]

Ain't this:
[img] [/img]

I don't consider the ski from hotel to lift to be high risk for example but I'm sure a insurance policy that excludes skiing would.

If you're skiing to the lift… 😉

The point though as I said earlier is if riding a bike round Amsterdam is low risk then how does that affect you ?

Well, it affects me if I ride a bike round Amsterdam, obviously. I've ridden many times in France without a helmet and I'm a Nationwide customer so it affects me, and the rest of my family.

But if you just sit there constantly saying "it doesn't matter because it doesn't affect me" then sooner or later it does. It may not be the grave subject matter of "First they came for the communists" but the principle still applies.

whilst people who go out to Magaluf, get themselves blind drunk and not entirely unforeseeably crack their head open falling down some stairs are probably perfectly well covered, simply because getting blind drunk is seen as a perfectly normal thing to do

No, they aren't covered actually.

Almost every travel insurance policy had alcohol exclusions.

I've never seen a policy that doesn't have one.

I'm glad I put the "probably" in as a half-arsed attempt to partially cover that one off 😉 Fair enough then, I went into hyperbole mode, but the remaining points still stand.

It's worth keeping an eye of for the clauses.

For exmaple, World Nomad Insurance, who are bloody cheap BTW for travel insurace with extra Gnar Mountain Biking, have a specific exclusion for injuries where alcohol is a factor - imagine that?

So in theory, go to Morzine, screw up the Chatel Road Gap and break your back - covered. Don't screw it up, head to Bar Robbo for a few Mutzig to celebrate and twist your ankle on the way home - not covered.

I seem to have to have 2 polices every year these days.

But if you just sit there constantly saying "it doesn't matter because it doesn't affect me" then sooner or later it does. It may not be the grave subject matter of "First they came for the communists" but the principle still applies.

I sort of take your point here, but insurance conditions ain't the same as legal compulsion...

Perhaps it's just the thin end of a slightly different wedge; insurance/financial organisations doing anything in their power to avoid costs or liability by quietly adjusting T&Cs.

Or to put it another way, read and understand your policy...

Wait, lets just focus on the big issues here. They're brewing Mutzig again?

I sort of take your point here, but insurance conditions ain't the same as legal compulsion...

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…

[quote=Bez ]Most people would think that travelling in a car full of airbags isn't very risky, but around half of all traumatic brain injuries occur inside one. There'd be an uproar if insurers demanded helmets inside cars, even though the vast majority of travellers manage to travel by car without sustaining a head injury.

Can I just pop this one in here

http://www.monash.edu/muarc/research/our-publications/atsb160

Compulsory (bike) helmets when travelling in a car would make a lot more sense than compulsory bike helmets. Any country which has introduced compulsory bike helmets, but not compulsory car helmets has a completely screwed up sense of risk perception.

Any country which has introduced compulsory bike helmets, but not compulsory car helmets has [s]a completely screwed up sense of risk perception.[/s] an ulterior motive which is at odds with public health and a sustainable energy policy.

FTFY 😉

They can become de facto compulsion if the condition becomes near universal, though.

Obviously.

The evidence for this is clear.

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

There are virtually no bars anymore in holiday resorts and almost no alcohol consumed at all. 🙄

Apples, chalk

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 [u]legal[/u] helmet compulsion, dislike the mainstream media driven idea of their [i]"defacto"[/i] 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...

[quote=stevextc ]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???

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.

[quote=wrecker ]It's not uncomfortable, in fact it's a pretty good safety measure with no discernible drawbacks.

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.

http://www.badscience.net/2013/12/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?

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 [i]really[/i] not see any difference in risk between these different ways of being on a bike?

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] ?quality=75[/img]

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

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

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

[quote=philjunior ]Most people talking about not wearing are thinking of popping to the shops or family pootles.

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.

[quote=nealglover ]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.

Scroll up neal - my post, top of the page

[i] 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. [/i]

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

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.

[quote=wrecker ]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).

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).

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...