Britain’s biggest building society, the Nationwide, is introducing changes to the travel insurance provided to many of its FlexPlus account holders that means they will not be covered should they choose not to wear a helmet while riding a bike on a trip.
In a booklet sent out to account holders benefiting from the cover, the Swindon-based business outlined changes to cover that will come into effect on 21 September.
While there’s some expansion of coverage for cycling – the previous wording exclude “off road biking” but now includes riding on “bridle ways and forest roads,” the stipulation that a helmet must be worn is new.
The previous exclusion of “BMX or off road biking” has now been changed to “BMX or on downhill or extreme trails.”
So, if you’re a Nationwide customer and you’re on holiday in Paris and rent a Vélib’ you won’t be covered if something happens, unless you fancy packing a lid in your luggage or borrow or buy one while there.
Ditto in Amsterdam or Copenhagen, where in contrast to the UK, it’s noticeable that most people who use bikes to get around do so bare-headed.
We have asked Nationwide to clarify the reasons behind the requirement for people cycling to wear a helmet to benefit from its insurance cover but are yet to hear back from them.
But Twitter user – and Natiowide account holder – Wolf Simpson tweeted a link to a BikeBiz article about the change, saying: “As a customer I’m disgusted & appalled in this! So you think a helmet will be needed in Netherlands?”
Apparently, they do.
A helmet will be needed if cycling in the Netherlands to be covered by the travel insurance from the 21 September. Steve
— Nationwide UK (@AskNationwide) July 20, 2017
Writing on BikeBiz, cycling author and journalist Carlton Reid noted: “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.”
Let’s hope a precedent hasn’t been set.
81 thoughts on “Cycling abroad and relying on Nationwide travel insurance? You’ll need to wear a helmet, or you won’t be able to claim”
* Opens keg, puts feet up*..
* Opens keg, puts feet up*..
BarryBianchi wrote:
Make sure you wear a helmet and a spine-protector: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1460408611434382
Ush wrote:
* Opens keg, puts feet up*..
— Ush Make sure you wear a helmet and a spine-protector: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1460408611434382— BarryBianchiThat’s odd. Often get head pain after a keg, but back’s usually OK….
BarryBianchi wrote:
So is someone’s head when they don’t wear a helmet, but you never know – better order that back protector asap…
BarryBianchi wrote:
You might need two.
Kegs, not feet.
Hants police cycle club
Hants police cycle club joined in by saying:
https://twitter.com/hantspolcc/status/888063961232539648
I tried to challenge them by asking them some questions, but it went completely over their heads.
They’re quite right in that
They’re quite right in that you can choose to wear or to not wear a helmet. They simply won’t cover you if you don’t. It’s the same freedom as whether you bank with them or not.
The clause covers all injury’s (sic), even stubbed toes. Which I find odd and am waiting for confimation that this is the case but Arnie seems to have gone a bit quiet. 🙁
I’m still waiting for a reply on their view to potential problems from helmet wearers when the injury is caused by wearing a helmet (rotational etc) and the customer feels pressured into wearing a helmet when they otherwise wouldn’t.
Let’s bombard them with Tweets.
I am a Nationwide customer and will transfer my account if needs be,
They’re quite happy for you
They’re quite happy for you to ski without one though.
From their web apparently.
From their web apparently.
I don’t really see the
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.
Rich_cb wrote:
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…
ChairRDRF wrote:
And you know, there are some people who won’t do the sacrifice! They won’t! You can’t talk to them…
[/quote]
I say, if it only saves one life, then it’s worth it…
Arno du Galibier wrote:
That’s exactly how I feel about shower helmets. A lot of people do not like it when they visit and I insist that they wear one. The kids used to complain too, but they’ve gotten over that rebellious stage and are now more responsible… and you know what? They don’t even notice them now.
Ush wrote:
Shower helmets? Interesting, in our house it’s stairs, a significant cause of injury I understand.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Joking aside, the insurance industry is probably the best place to look for definitive data on this topic.
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.
Rich_cb wrote:
Way too much of an absolute.
There was evidence prior to 9/11 that Islamic terrorists were trying to hijack planes. Didn’t stop two (? off the top of my head – Munich Re and Swiss Re?) taking a billion dollar dump each and Lloyds being worried about bankruptcy.
Slightly facetious example, but there’ve been many other, more predictable catastrophes (eg. Katrina) that have led to major players being stung hard, even with armies of well-paid professionals (catastrophe modellers, actuaries) committed to ensuring that they are not.
My point is that you cannot hold insurance companies as experts in this particular area. And even in the area that they are supposed to be expert in (interpretation and management of risk), they are extremely fallible.
davel wrote:
Your examples are completely irrelevant.
Both are exceptionally rare events. Therefore the data available on such events will be minimal/non existent.
Cycling injuries are, by contrast, incredibly common. There will be reams and reams of data available.
Insurance companies will always struggle to quantify risk for rare events, for common events they can predict the risk with far greater accuracy.
Rich_cb wrote:
— Rich_cb Joking aside, the insurance industry is probably the best place to look for definitive data on this topic. 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.— ConcordeCX
The insurance industry has looked at this many times, and has a vast amount of data to draw on, which is why they don’t insist on cycle helmets. All the reliable evidence shows that cycle helmets don’t reduce risk. I wonder if Nationwide will be issuing an explanation?
burtthebike wrote:
Assuming that Nationwide have made this decision based on objective evidence, it would be interesting to see their data.
ConcordeCX wrote:
I’ll have you know a sacrifice saved my life!!
ConcordeCX wrote:
Does it have to be a ram, or will any other ruminant do? Do you get extra credit for a black goat, for example?
brooksby wrote:
whatsoever pleaseth the Great Lord in his righteous, yet random but strangely always justified according to the High Priest, anger. For there is no knowing the mystery of his ways, nor yet the source of his data. No nor the logic of his arguments neither.
Rich_cb wrote:
It is the latter.
Unless they have some previously unpublished research which shows that helmets do reduce risk of course, but that doesn’t seem likely.
I always wear a helmet and
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.
cyclisto wrote:
You always wear a helmet? What, watching TV, making the dinner, having a shower, on the toilet?
OldRidgeback wrote:
You always wear a helmet? What, watching TV, making the dinner, having a shower, on the toilet?— cyclisto
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:
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:
You always wear a helmet? What, watching TV, making the dinner, having a shower, on the toilet?— cyclisto
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.
Actually the stipulation that
Actually the stipulation that a helmet must be worn isn’t new – it was required for MTB riding anyway. I’ve just looked at the current policy wording to see what’s covered:
“Mountain bike riding on recognised trails (helmet must be worn)”
and you are only covered at all even then:
“if you have selected and paid for the Hazardous Activities extension and where the activity is
supervised by a professional instructor holding the relevant qualifications)”
And there’s a heavy
And there’s a heavy implication that you must use breathing apparatus if you are going scuba diving. Tisk!
BarryBianchi wrote:
that is necessarily true, since SCUBA stands for self-contained underwater breathing apparatus…
ConcordeCX 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.
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.
SNAFU, I’ll be writing an
SNAFU, I’ll be writing an objection and closing my account, they can get fucked as far as I’m concerned, they do sod all for existing members in any case.
That the policy is underwritten by the same people that do the Natwest insurance policy but don’t have the helmet clause just goes to show what BS this is.
Quote:
They probably looked at how many cycling related accident there were.
How many cyclists were or weren’t wearing helmets.
Thusly, how many claims they could refuse and how much money they could save and Bob’s your aunty’s live in lover.
It won’t have been your typical investigation into head injuries. There’s probably a reason why it’s not a legal requirement to wear a helmet and Nationwide are not bothered about it.
It is personal choice though as no one has to bank with Nationwide.
The people who wrote the
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.
JeevesBath wrote:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
They’ve crunched all that
They’ve crunched all that data, and leave skiiing and snowboarding helmet free? (I can’t find that in the policy)
bendertherobot wrote:
It’s there – they are required. And for canoeing and rafting.
BarryBianchi wrote:
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/~/media/MainSite/documents/products/current-accounts/flexplus/P3349-FlexPlus-Travel-Policy.pdf
Can see the Canoe/Kayak but not the skiing?
That’s right, rich_cb – focus
That’s right, rich_cb – focus on the examples (which are often extreme in conversations, to highlight a point, yes?), because you know they’re not my central argument.
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, mean that there isn’t evidence suggesting they should do otherwise.
edited for clarity: I read my post back and even I couldn’t understand what the last bit meant.
davel wrote:
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 wrote:
It really isn’t – you’re making a massive assumption and calling it safe. All you know is that they’ve put a clause in about use – you don’t know who from Nationwide analysed what and what conclusions were drawn.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the ‘helmets cause injuries’ point: I’m not really arguing that. I’d guess that it’s more likely that, rather than target that question, the conclusion they arrived at was that helmets prevented injuries – but again, we don’t know the thinking behind the clause.
Edit to elaborate: someone might have seen three studies that overall show an increased risk of injury of say 10% from wearing a helmet. They might have also seen twelve studies that overall show a decreased risk of injury of say 15%. That could lead to the conclusion that leads to the clause. You just can’t make a blanket “none of the data analysed by Nationwide shows an increased risk of injury with helmet use”.
davel wrote:
When assessing risk for commonly occurring events insurance companies normally use actuarial datasets not random research papers.
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.
Rich_cb wrote:
It really isn’t – you’re making a massive assumption and calling it safe. All you know is that they’ve put a clause in about use – you don’t know who from Nationwide analysed what and what conclusions were drawn.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the ‘helmets cause injuries’ point: I’m not really arguing that. I’d guess that it’s more likely that, rather than target that question, the conclusion they arrived at was that helmets prevented injuries – but again, we don’t know the thinking behind the clause.
Edit to elaborate: someone might have seen three studies that overall show an increased risk of injury of say 10% from wearing a helmet. They might have also seen twelve studies that overall show a decreased risk of injury of say 15%. That could lead to the conclusion that leads to the clause. You just can’t make a blanket “none of the data analysed by Nationwide shows an increased risk of injury with helmet use”.
— Rich_cb When assessing risk for commonly occurring events insurance companies normally use actuarial datasets not random research papers. 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.— davel
Does someone work for an insurance company then?
All it shows is that the possible injury is not related to helmet wearing, but that helmet wearing is a major factor on them refusing to pay out. There is no safety issue here.
don simon wrote:
I don’t personally but I know a few actuaries who do this sort of stuff.
I said in my original post that this might just be an excuse to not pay out.
Even having said that they still wouldn’t have introduced the policy if their data showed an increased risk of injury with helmet use as it would potentially end up costing them more.
Rich_cb wrote:
Does someone work for an insurance company then?
All it shows is that the possible injury is not related to helmet wearing, but that helmet wearing is a major factor on them refusing to pay out. There is no safety issue here.
— Rich_cb I don’t personally but I know a few actuaries who do this sort of stuff. I said in my original post that this might just be an excuse to not pay out. Even having said that they still wouldn’t have introduced the policy if their data showed an increased risk of injury with helmet use as it would potentially end up costing them more.— don simon
The biggest issue, for me, is that they getting around all cycle related injuries for simply not wearing a helmet (in spite of what they say). They are also reducing the number of leisure journeys by bike. They are singling out cycling for special treatment and this creeping in of ppe and victim blaming.
It’s a wholesale poor decision on their part.
Rich_cb wrote:
You have no idea of the processes in place and how easily they can be bypassed. You’re assuming rational actors at each step: are you an economist?
They could have a load of Harvard phDs crunching whatever data they can get their hands on – if product managers, legal teams and execs can override it, that evidence can have little to do with the final policy.
For all we know, the underwriting firm’s chief exec’s niece might have banged her head in Spain.
At any rate, what hasn’t happened is that this firm has got access to data that others haven’t: this decision cannot be taken as any evidence that helmets prevent injury.
davel wrote:
Not all insurers have access to the same data and not all insurers interpret the data in the same way.
If they did they’d all offer the exact same prices.
So Nationwide may have access to a different dataset, they may be changing the way they interpret their data or they may have been infiltrated by fanatical helmet zealots.
Who knows which is the more likely explanation…
Rich_cb 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.
davel wrote:
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.
Rich_cb wrote:
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.— davel
The most sensible post yet.
Rich_cb wrote:
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.— davel
… or are maybe focusing on other products for that. You’re clinging to data and evidence as the only route to changing financial products.
You seem to work in a very different world.
Rich_cb wrote:
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:
— Rich_cbThe 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.— davel
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:
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:
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:
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.
— Rich_cb 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.— davel
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.
Plenty of other providers –
Plenty of other providers – vote with your feet.
Plus, packaged insurance policies from banks tend to have cover that isn’t very broad. You shouldn’t really rely on it anyway.
Why is everyone fixated on
Why is everyone fixated on death/serious-injury. This is holiday insurance, they probably have way more minor injuries to the head (bumps/scrapes) requiring treatment by a doctor, wearing a helmet can prevent a lot of those, its the reason i wear one.
STATO wrote:
Don’t these sorts of policies have deductables that means they are irrelevant for the costs of minor treatment? I know I’ve never succeeded in claiming for anything on holiday travel insurance for that reason, even if it’s lots of little outlays that add up over a time.
The only reason to bother with travel insurance at all is in case of the nightmare scenario – disabing injury needing an airlift home or something like that.
Do they specify what’s
Do they specify what’s acceptable as a helmet?. Could you wear one of those old school Cinelli hairnet helmets…..easy to carry in your hand luggage.
schlepcycling wrote:
Nor do they define hazardous.
Gosh – what a lot of flannel!
Gosh – what a lot of flannel!
I wonder how they establish the evidence of wearing a helmet or not in the case of a claim other than in the most serious of cases I presume you’ll be on the phone to them making your claim and answering the question ‘Were you wearing a helmet?’ completley honestly.
Insurance and its small print is a pain. I was annoyed with my insurance when I found in the small print that whilst the bike was covered, clothes were not!
As others have said, this is
As others have said, this is probably a purely commercial addition to the wording. Regardless of wether helmets are effective or not, including that stipulation will reduce the number of potential payouts and most people probably won’t even know or care until they try and make a claim.
What is insidious and does need action is the ongoing drip drip drip of “cycling is dangerous and requires PPE in all circumstances” messaging that disuades people out of their cars and back onto bicycles.
Quote:
This would appear to be the case based on the pithy and pathetic responses from Nationwide at the moment. Not one reply of any substance.
don simon wrote:
This would appear to be the case based on the pithy and pathetic responses from Nationwide at the moment. Not one reply of any substance.
It’s a product decision.
I used to live near a canal. The canal never flooded, and never will (it can’t – it discharges into a river via locks a couple of miles away) , but half of home insurers wouldn’t touch us. That wasn’t a particularly nuanced or logical decision – they’d just made a decision that their risk profile involved cutting out any homes near any waterways. It was probably a ham-fisted response to being stung by actual flooding. They didn’t say that – but they wouldn’t do business with us: their products weren’t for us.
That’s how companies cut out market segments: they don’t say ‘we don’t sell to you lot’ – they just tweak products to make it impossible or very difficult for certain segments to buy.
Who knows what’s behind Nationwide’s decision – but it’s probably nowhere near as objective as some on here think.
davel wrote:
Yes had similar experience,with Nationwide funnily :)lived within a mile of a flood risk river they wanted to double the insurance premiums, the fact it was a mile but several hundred feet down an estuary type valley and wouldn’t have flooded my house even had the polar ice caps melted didn’t seem to factor,fortunately I moved before it became a big issue
Any official response from
Any official response from Nationwide on this yet?
Seriously, for the vast
Seriously, for the vast majority of people who went on a cycling holiday, the requirement to wear a helmet to be insured is a total non issue. I’m not sure why the 64 comments and counting…
drosco wrote:
Too many posting who don’t understand the problem?
don simon wrote:
Yep, that’ll be me.
drosco wrote:
Because this is creeping compulsion with no justification which will have a negative effect on cycling?
Also I presume this is the
Also I presume this is the ‘Free’ travel insurance benefit, Methinks they are trying to save money by narrowing the benefit T&Cs so it covers practically very few of their customers and get you to upsell with upgrades/add-ons
If you don’t like the
If you don’t like the requirement, you’re free to insure with another firm.
Nationwide also have stringent conditions on their house contents insurance, which seem to be aimed at not paying out for incidents that could be due to contributory negligence or which are likely fraudulent claims.
And you can’t blame the Nationwide for having those clauses in their policies, given the vast numbers of claims for car whiplash injuries and holiday food poisoning that Brits submit.