Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

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

Building society makes helmets compulsory for people riding bikes on holiday - even in the Netherlands

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.

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.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

81 comments

Avatar
Kadenz | 6 years ago
1 like

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.

 

 

Avatar
Awavey | 6 years ago
0 likes

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

Avatar
drosco | 6 years ago
0 likes

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...

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to drosco | 6 years ago
1 like
drosco wrote:

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...

Too many posting who don't understand the problem?

Avatar
drosco replied to don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
0 likes
don simon wrote:
drosco wrote:

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...

Too many posting who don't understand the problem?

 

Yep, that'll be me.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to drosco | 6 years ago
0 likes
drosco wrote:

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...

Because this is creeping compulsion with no justification which will have a negative effect on cycling?

Avatar
dottigirl | 6 years ago
1 like

Any official response from Nationwide on this yet?

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
2 likes
Quote:

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.

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.

Avatar
davel replied to don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
3 likes
don simon wrote:
Quote:

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.

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.

Avatar
Awavey replied to davel | 6 years ago
1 like
davel wrote:

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. .

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

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 6 years ago
2 likes

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.

Avatar
FatBoyW | 6 years ago
0 likes

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!   

 

 

Avatar
schlepcycling | 6 years ago
1 like

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.

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to schlepcycling | 6 years ago
1 like
schlepcycling wrote:

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.

Nor do they define hazardous.

 

Avatar
STATO | 6 years ago
3 likes

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.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to STATO | 6 years ago
0 likes
STATO wrote:

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.

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.

Avatar
scouser_andy | 6 years ago
6 likes

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.

Avatar
davel | 6 years ago
1 like

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.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to davel | 6 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:

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

My argument was to counter your assertion that 

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

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

If you read my reply I actually addressed your point.

Insurance companies are very good at predicting risk for common events.

Cycling injuries are a common event.

It may only be one company at the moment but, as others have also pointed out, they will be making that decision based on data.

They couldn't care less about the helmet debate.

They only care about their bottom line.

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

Avatar
davel replied to Rich_cb | 6 years ago
1 like
Rich_cb wrote:

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

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".

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to davel | 6 years ago
0 likes
davel 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".

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.

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Rich_cb | 6 years ago
2 likes
Rich_cb wrote:
davel 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".

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.

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.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
0 likes
don simon 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.

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.

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Rich_cb | 6 years ago
3 likes
Rich_cb wrote:
don simon 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.

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.

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.

Avatar
davel replied to Rich_cb | 6 years ago
2 likes
Rich_cb wrote:
don simon 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.

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.

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.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to davel | 6 years ago
0 likes
davel 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.

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...

Avatar
davel replied to Rich_cb | 6 years ago
2 likes
Rich_cb 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.

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.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to davel | 6 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:

I doubt Nationwide/the underwriters have massively different data from other comparable insurers.

But I agree about the differing interpretation and positioning of the product - that has been my point all along.

It will come down to things that you can't possibly know, and in that mix will be recent payouts, the current risk profile, the plans of the product manager(s) for travel insurance, and quite possibly personal biases and assumptions that don't have much to do with an understanding about the relative risks of cycling.

So you think it likely that an insurance company would introduce a rule that would lead to more injuries and therefore claims?

My original point was that Nationwide cannot have found any evidence that bicycle helmets increase the risk of injury within the huge amount of data they have access to.

Unless you believe that Nationwide are deliberately trying to make less money.

Avatar
drosco replied to Rich_cb | 6 years ago
0 likes
Rich_cb wrote:
davel wrote:

I doubt Nationwide/the underwriters have massively different data from other comparable insurers.

But I agree about the differing interpretation and positioning of the product - that has been my point all along.

It will come down to things that you can't possibly know, and in that mix will be recent payouts, the current risk profile, the plans of the product manager(s) for travel insurance, and quite possibly personal biases and assumptions that don't have much to do with an understanding about the relative risks of cycling.

So you think it likely that an insurance company would introduce a rule that would lead to more injuries and therefore claims?

My original point was that Nationwide cannot have found any evidence that bicycle helmets increase the risk of injury within the huge amount of data they have access to.

Unless you believe that Nationwide are deliberately trying to make less money.

The most sensible post yet.

Avatar
davel replied to Rich_cb | 6 years ago
0 likes
Rich_cb wrote:
davel wrote:

I doubt Nationwide/the underwriters have massively different data from other comparable insurers.

But I agree about the differing interpretation and positioning of the product - that has been my point all along.

It will come down to things that you can't possibly know, and in that mix will be recent payouts, the current risk profile, the plans of the product manager(s) for travel insurance, and quite possibly personal biases and assumptions that don't have much to do with an understanding about the relative risks of cycling.

So you think it likely that an insurance company would introduce a rule that would lead to more injuries and therefore claims?

My original point was that Nationwide cannot have found any evidence that bicycle helmets increase the risk of injury within the huge amount of data they have access to.

Unless you believe that Nationwide are deliberately trying to make less money.

... 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.

Pages

Latest Comments