Iconic Cycling Events offer team road.cc members a 10% discount off of Bike Bath, Oxford & Chester sportives

burtthebike wrote:

madcarew wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

Can you just give it a rest for once. The OP is nothing to do with helmet use. As people have pointed out this type of event always specifies them. Most people are fine with this.  If, as you claim Burt, you want to take part so much, but are so adamantly against wearing a helmet that you called several insurers, and neglected to ask the most important question; what would the event cost to cover? Either you wound yourself up to a state in which you are incompetent, or all this is just a little fantasy of yours. Either way go and take a piss into the wind. 

So anyone questioning accepted "wisdom" should just shut up and go away.  There is no justification for these helmet rules and they are helmet compulsion by the back door, and are counterproductive to cycling, so anyone interested in making cycling more popular should be agitating against them, not just accepting the organisers' lies.

 

No Burt, anyone questioning accepted wisdom should simply answer in a straight-forward, non accusatory manner the simple questions put to them about the extent of their 'research'.
 

As pointed out, you failed to ask a basic simple question, but accuse event organisers (whom you accuse of being lazy and sloppy) of incompetence, but accuse others of assumption when you are making a raft of assumptions yourself. You fail, almost invariably to make a cogent argument, but here is your opportunity.

So, Burt. I know, from having run a theme park (UK), that our insurance costs allowing xyz activity allowed us to make a profit on xyz activities. If we wanted to include another activity (which was actually in-ground trampolines) our insurance cover ramped from premium of over 25k a year, to 85k. As you say. They're experts in assessing risks. Why would we add 60k a year to our baseline costs for a non-profit activity? People asked why we took out the trampolines, and we said because out insurers wouldn't cover it. The sub text there was "at viable cost". It is quite likely in my exprerience of running national championship cycling events in NZ that, although we don't have strict  (medical related) public liability rules, our insurance costs for allowing some activities (a bouncy castle and other amusements for young ones while the events are going on)  that the inclusion or exclusion of some activities alters the cost of insurance cover to the extent it can make the entire event unviable. It's not only the cost of the insurance, but the application, including excesses.

Your 'sloppy and incompetent' organisers, whom you tar all with the same brush (BTW, which is it? There are 'thousands of events' that don't require helmet use, or as others attest, most events require helmet use) are generally volunteers, often working for a charitable trust which is operating a shoe string budget, for whom an insurance premium (or excess) increase of a few thousand pounds makes the entire thing unviable. 

So, Burt. Who did you ring? What were their quotes (I highly doubt you got one, because the paper work involved in getting insurance quotes for public events is exhaustive) and what was the margin that the organisers were operating on that enabled them to take 'option b' of no helmet? Are they operating under the aegis of British cycling or UCI, in which case helmets are mandatory, and the liability insurance is unavailable for non-helmet events? These are simple and direct questions Burt, which in your encyclopaedic knoweldge of running events, and risk assessment you will be able to answer in simple and straightforward, traceable replies. 

And one last question Burt. How many mass participation public events have you organised and tried to get insurance for? What, exactly, is your depth of knowledge and expertise in this field, such that you can smear the reputation of those that do undertake this task?

Put up Burt, or STFU.

I've just read your post through twice, and it still doesn't make sense.  To be accused of failing to construct a cogent argument by someone quite so incapable of constructing one is a real compliment, thank you.

From the little I did manage to understand, perhaps you could tell me what you're referring to "As pointed out, you failed to ask a basic simple question.....".  what basic simple question?  The only question I was interested in was did the insurers demand a helmet rule, and the cost of the insurance was of absolutely no concern to me.

You then ramble on incoherently about trampolines, cycling events in NZ and bouncy castles, none of which seem to have any relevance to the imposition of helmet rules on bike rides in the UK.

You go on to say that I was obtaining quotes for insurance for events, which I wasn't, so quite where you got that from is a mystery.

I've helped organise quite a few mass participation cycling events, none of which required helmets.

And for all those kindly explaining that all BC rides mandate helmets, they don't

"Helmets

In compliance with British Cycling’s rules and regulations, helmets are compulsory for under-18s, and recommended but not compulsory for adults, taking part in our rides."

https://www.letsride.co.uk/terms

Well Burt, I'll put up my hand. I learned something today. Not all rides under the aegis (it seems) of BC require helmets (though those of the UCI do).

However, your simple question you needed to ask was not whether insurance companies madate helmet wearing, but what the difference in prices for that particular event is for insurance with and without helmets (hence the quote). Insurance companies can and will tell you they don't mandate stuff, they just price appropriately to the risk (as you've pointed out, they're the experts on that). It's a shame that you couldn't understand my explanation (with examples) after 2 reads, but not surprising. Other readers certainly could after one perusal. 

So Burt. Which event, which insurer? As I said, those challenging perceived wisdom need to be able to provide clear, traceable answers to those questions, not a Clintonian "I can't remember". Your inability to provide basic details undermines the credibility of your entire argument;

FWIW I don't approve of mandatory helmet wear, but I certainly approve of wearing one myself, and would encourage others to do so.  

madcarew wrote:

Well Burt, I'll put up my hand. I learned something today. Not all rides under the aegis (it seems) of BC require helmets (though those of the UCI do).

However, your simple question you needed to ask was not whether insurance companies madate helmet wearing, but what the difference in prices for that particular event is for insurance with and without helmets (hence the quote). Insurance companies can and will tell you they don't mandate stuff, they just price appropriately to the risk (as you've pointed out, they're the experts on that). It's a shame that you couldn't understand my explanation (with examples) after 2 reads, but not surprising. Other readers certainly could after one perusal. 

So Burt. Which event, which insurer? As I said, those challenging perceived wisdom need to be able to provide clear, traceable answers to those questions, not a Clintonian "I can't remember". Your inability to provide basic details undermines the credibility of your entire argument;

 

FWIW I don't approve of mandatory helmet wear, but I certainly approve of wearing one myself, and would encourage others to do so.  

Why should I answer a question of absolutely no relevance or interest to me?  The question I asked the insurance companies was simply "do you demand helmets be worn for non competetive cycling events."  If you want to find out if they have variable rates for events with or without a helmet rule, I suggest you ask them.

I was just asking for my own personal interest, so I didn't keep records or make notes, but to turn your question on its head, how about you provide the actual insurance contract that mandates helmets for organised leisure rides?

paulrattew wrote:

Organizations running sportives don't really have a choice about having a mandatory helmet rule as its required for them too get event insurance, so any argument on this point is a bit mute.

Perhaps if you had read my original post, you might be able to constuct a logical argument.  I've heard this insurance excuse dozens of times, and as I posted above, it is a lie.  The insurance companies do not demand that helmets are worn; I've checked.

It is a lie used by incompetent organisers to justify their absurd, illogical rule.

The briefest reflection shows that it can't be true; there are thousands of events which don't have this rule which still get event insurance.

burtthebike wrote:

there are thousands of events which don't have this rule which still get event insurance.

Such as? They can't be popular mass participation sportives, because from experience they all make you wear a helmet. Even if it's just something to stick your timer chip onto.

burtthebike wrote:

paulrattew wrote:

Organizations running sportives don't really have a choice about having a mandatory helmet rule as its required for them too get event insurance, so any argument on this point is a bit mute.

Perhaps if you had read my original post, you might be able to constuct a logical argument.  I've heard this insurance excuse dozens of times, and as I posted above, it is a lie.  The insurance companies do not demand that helmets are worn; I've checked.

It is a lie used by incompetent organisers to justify their absurd, illogical rule.

The briefest reflection shows that it can't be true; there are thousands of events which don't have this rule which still get event insurance.

 

Well, in my experience of having worked for companies organizing similar events, insurers do either demand it or rank the cover price up massively if you do not mandate helmets, which is effectively the same as the insurers demanding it. 

Small events may have different insurance demands, but if you would like to point out which large, mass participation, run for profit by a company events do not mandate helmets then I would very much like to know (as it would be nice to take part and support their events).

Perhaps you should try to organize a mass participation event, for profit, and see what the insurance companies say then

paulrattew wrote:

Well, in my experience of having worked for companies organizing similar events, insurers do either demand it or rank the cover price up massively if you do not mandate helmets, which is effectively the same as the insurers demanding it. 

Small events may have different insurance demands, but if you would like to point out which large, mass participation, run for profit by a company events do not mandate helmets then I would very much like to know (as it would be nice to take part and support their events).

Perhaps you should try to organize a mass participation event, for profit, and see what the insurance companies say then.

I have been quoted this imposition by insurance companies by organisers a dozen times, and a dozen times I've contacted the insurers and found out that the organisers were lying.  The insurance companies are highly experienced in determining risk, and they don't demand helmets because they don't reduce risk.

Tell you what, give us the names of a few of the insurers who demand helmet laws, in your experience, and I'll check again.

burtthebike wrote:

paulrattew wrote:

Organizations running sportives don't really have a choice about having a mandatory helmet rule as its required for them too get event insurance, so any argument on this point is a bit mute.

Perhaps if you had read my original post, you might be able to constuct a logical argument.  I've heard this insurance excuse dozens of times, and as I posted above, it is a lie.  The insurance companies do not demand that helmets are worn; I've checked.

It is a lie used by incompetent organisers to justify their absurd, illogical rule.

The briefest reflection shows that it can't be true; there are thousands of events which don't have this rule which still get event insurance.

And who, exactly, did you approach?  

Rapha Nadal wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

paulrattew wrote:

Organizations running sportives don't really have a choice about having a mandatory helmet rule as its required for them too get event insurance, so any argument on this point is a bit mute.

Perhaps if you had read my original post, you might be able to constuct a logical argument.  I've heard this insurance excuse dozens of times, and as I posted above, it is a lie.  The insurance companies do not demand that helmets are worn; I've checked.

It is a lie used by incompetent organisers to justify their absurd, illogical rule.

The briefest reflection shows that it can't be true; there are thousands of events which don't have this rule which still get event insurance.

And who, exactly, did you approach?  

First I approached the organisers and asked why they had a helmet rule, and the response was that their insurers demanded it.  I then contacted those insurers and asked why they had such a rule, and the response was always that they didn't have one.  I don't remember individual details of which event or insurer, but the response was always the same.

If you want to confirm this, there is nothing stopping you adopting the same method.

burtthebike wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

paulrattew wrote:

Organizations running sportives don't really have a choice about having a mandatory helmet rule as its required for them too get event insurance, so any argument on this point is a bit mute.

Perhaps if you had read my original post, you might be able to constuct a logical argument.  I've heard this insurance excuse dozens of times, and as I posted above, it is a lie.  The insurance companies do not demand that helmets are worn; I've checked.

It is a lie used by incompetent organisers to justify their absurd, illogical rule.

The briefest reflection shows that it can't be true; there are thousands of events which don't have this rule which still get event insurance.

And who, exactly, did you approach?  

First I approached the organisers and asked why they had a helmet rule, and the response was that their insurers demanded it.  I then contacted those insurers and asked why they had such a rule, and the response was always that they didn't have one.  I don't remember individual details of which event or insurer, but the response was always the same.

If you want to confirm this, there is nothing stopping you adopting the same method.

Insurers will insure pretty much anything for a price - and that price may be such that it effectively precludes running the event - that's the point some people have been trying to make to you but you seem unwilling to consider.

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

paulrattew wrote:

Organizations running sportives don't really have a choice about having a mandatory helmet rule as its required for them too get event insurance, so any argument on this point is a bit mute.

Perhaps if you had read my original post, you might be able to constuct a logical argument.  I've heard this insurance excuse dozens of times, and as I posted above, it is a lie.  The insurance companies do not demand that helmets are worn; I've checked.

It is a lie used by incompetent organisers to justify their absurd, illogical rule.

The briefest reflection shows that it can't be true; there are thousands of events which don't have this rule which still get event insurance.

And who, exactly, did you approach?  

First I approached the organisers and asked why they had a helmet rule, and the response was that their insurers demanded it.  I then contacted those insurers and asked why they had such a rule, and the response was always that they didn't have one.  I don't remember individual details of which event or insurer, but the response was always the same.

If you want to confirm this, there is nothing stopping you adopting the same method.

Insurers will insure pretty much anything for a price - and that price may be such that it effectively precludes running the event - that's the point some people have been trying to make to you but you seem unwilling to consider.

No, the point most people here are trying to make, with absolutely no proof so far, is that insurers demand helmet rules for organised leisure rides.

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

paulrattew wrote:

Organizations running sportives don't really have a choice about having a mandatory helmet rule as its required for them too get event insurance, so any argument on this point is a bit mute.

Perhaps if you had read my original post, you might be able to constuct a logical argument.  I've heard this insurance excuse dozens of times, and as I posted above, it is a lie.  The insurance companies do not demand that helmets are worn; I've checked.

It is a lie used by incompetent organisers to justify their absurd, illogical rule.

The briefest reflection shows that it can't be true; there are thousands of events which don't have this rule which still get event insurance.

And who, exactly, did you approach?  

First I approached the organisers and asked why they had a helmet rule, and the response was that their insurers demanded it.  I then contacted those insurers and asked why they had such a rule, and the response was always that they didn't have one.  I don't remember individual details of which event or insurer, but the response was always the same.

If you want to confirm this, there is nothing stopping you adopting the same method.

Insurers will insure pretty much anything for a price - and that price may be such that it effectively precludes running the event - that's the point some people have been trying to make to you but you seem unwilling to consider.

No, the point most people here are trying to make, with absolutely no proof so far, is that insurers demand helmet rules for organised leisure rides.

No, they're really not. You should only need to read what they're saying to understand that. I am, truly, sorry you don't understand that.

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

No, the point most people here are trying to make, with absolutely no proof so far, is that insurers demand helmet rules for organised leisure rides.

No, they're really not. You should only need to read what they're saying to understand that. I am, truly, sorry you don't understand that.

OK, if I'm misunderstanding something, and all these people aren't saying that insurers demand helmet rules for leisure rides, then please explain to me in words of one syllable what their argument is?  I've seen nobody say anything different, but perhaps I've missed it in some of the longer waffle posts.

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

No, the point most people here are trying to make, with absolutely no proof so far, is that insurers demand helmet rules for organised leisure rides.

No, they're really not. You should only need to read what they're saying to understand that. I am, truly, sorry you don't understand that.

OK, if I'm misunderstanding something, and all these people aren't saying that insurers demand helmet rules for leisure rides, then please explain to me in words of one syllable what their argument is?  I've seen nobody say anything different, but perhaps I've missed it in some of the longer waffle posts.

OK - here goes again, from the bit you snipped just above your first quote

Quote:

Insurers will insure pretty much anything for a price - and that price may be such that it effectively precludes running the event

That is what a number of people are saying, and have tried to explain to you in equally simple terms. I actually don't believe you can't understand the essential point there - the alternative is too frightening.

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

No, the point most people here are trying to make, with absolutely no proof so far, is that insurers demand helmet rules for organised leisure rides.

No, they're really not. You should only need to read what they're saying to understand that. I am, truly, sorry you don't understand that.

OK, if I'm misunderstanding something, and all these people aren't saying that insurers demand helmet rules for leisure rides, then please explain to me in words of one syllable what their argument is?  I've seen nobody say anything different, but perhaps I've missed it in some of the longer waffle posts.

OK - here goes again, from the bit you snipped just above your first quote

Quote:

Insurers will insure pretty much anything for a price - and that price may be such that it effectively precludes running the event

That is what a number of people are saying, and have tried to explain to you in equally simple terms. I actually don't believe you can't understand the essential point there - the alternative is too frightening.

Thank you for your response.  I must be hard of understanding, but what does that have to do with whether insurers demand a helmet rule?  You're talking about price and I'm talking about whether the insurers impose a helmet rule.  Please explain how the two are related.  I'm talking about chalk and you keep talking about cheese.

As I've already shown, some BC events can be ridden without a helmet.  The Eroica Britannia has no helmet rule, but they all have event insurance.

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

No, the point most people here are trying to make, with absolutely no proof so far, is that insurers demand helmet rules for organised leisure rides.

No, they're really not. You should only need to read what they're saying to understand that. I am, truly, sorry you don't understand that.

OK, if I'm misunderstanding something, and all these people aren't saying that insurers demand helmet rules for leisure rides, then please explain to me in words of one syllable what their argument is?  I've seen nobody say anything different, but perhaps I've missed it in some of the longer waffle posts.

OK - here goes again, from the bit you snipped just above your first quote

Quote:

Insurers will insure pretty much anything for a price - and that price may be such that it effectively precludes running the event

That is what a number of people are saying, and have tried to explain to you in equally simple terms. I actually don't believe you can't understand the essential point there - the alternative is too frightening.

Thank you for your response.  I must be hard of understanding, but what does that have to do with whether insurers demand a helmet rule?  You're talking about price and I'm talking about whether the insurers impose a helmet rule.  Please explain how the two are related.

As I've already shown, some BC events can be ridden without a helmet.  The Eroica Britannia has no helmet rule, but they all have event insurance.

Taking your last point, i've also already shown BC registered events have mandatory helmet rules according to their own documentation - but that is beside the point; i've not claimed at any point that you cannot have an organised event without a mandatory helmet requirement. I have, in fact, already pointed out that I don't believe there is any ubiquitous mandatory helmet requirement.

As to the first point - and I have to believe you're just being deliberately obtuse here - what some people are saying is that the quotes for event insurance with and without e.g. compliance to safety recommendations from certain recognised bodies (e.g. as in an insurance policy question shown in an earlier reply) may well be different. That difference may be sufficient to preclude running the event. So, whilst the answer to question "Is there a hard helmet rule in all your policies ?" is "No", the overall effect is such that the event can only take place in line with the organiser constraints (cost, profit etc) if the policy with compliant safety clauses is taken.

I really can't be bothered to try and explain any further - several people have tried and I thought i'd put is as simply as I could earlier, clearly not - I have better things to be doing with my time. Enjoy your world, you have my sympathy.

fukawitribe wrote:

As to the first point - and I have to believe you're just being deliberately obtuse here - what some people are saying is that the quotes for event insurance with and without e.g. compliance to safety recommendations from certain recognised bodies (e.g. as in an insurance policy question shown in an earlier reply) may well be different. That difference may be sufficient to preclude running the event. So, whilst the answer to question "Is there a hard helmet rule in all your policies ?" is "No", the overall effect is such that the event can only take place in line with the organiser constraints (cost, profit etc) if the policy with compliant safety clauses is taken.

I really can't be bothered to try and explain any further - several people have tried and I thought i'd put is as simply as I could earlier, clearly not - I have better things to be doing with my time. Enjoy your world, you have my sympathy.

Since no-one has produced a shred of evidence that there are different costs for events with or without helmets, it isn't me who's being obtuse.  This is merely a distraction tactic from the real point and as I've already said many times, utterly irrelevant to that point.

Since you haven't yet explained anything, stopping isn't going to be a problem.

burtthebike wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

paulrattew wrote:

Organizations running sportives don't really have a choice about having a mandatory helmet rule as its required for them too get event insurance, so any argument on this point is a bit mute.

Perhaps if you had read my original post, you might be able to constuct a logical argument.  I've heard this insurance excuse dozens of times, and as I posted above, it is a lie.  The insurance companies do not demand that helmets are worn; I've checked.

It is a lie used by incompetent organisers to justify their absurd, illogical rule.

The briefest reflection shows that it can't be true; there are thousands of events which don't have this rule which still get event insurance.

And who, exactly, did you approach?  

First I approached the organisers and asked why they had a helmet rule, and the response was that their insurers demanded it.  I then contacted those insurers and asked why they had such a rule, and the response was always that they didn't have one.  I don't remember individual details of which event or insurer, but the response was always the same.

If you want to confirm this, there is nothing stopping you adopting the same method.

Yeah, funny that you suddently can't remember the exact insurers but yet can categorically remember that they all gave you the same response.  Did you speak to head of underwriting?  Somebody working for a syndicate?  A person in a call centre who wouldn't know insurance if it slapped them in the face?  A broker?  Did you speak to just on emarket?  Multiple markets?

Rapha Nadal wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

paulrattew wrote:

Organizations running sportives don't really have a choice about having a mandatory helmet rule as its required for them too get event insurance, so any argument on this point is a bit mute.

Perhaps if you had read my original post, you might be able to constuct a logical argument.  I've heard this insurance excuse dozens of times, and as I posted above, it is a lie.  The insurance companies do not demand that helmets are worn; I've checked.

It is a lie used by incompetent organisers to justify their absurd, illogical rule.

The briefest reflection shows that it can't be true; there are thousands of events which don't have this rule which still get event insurance.

And who, exactly, did you approach?  

First I approached the organisers and asked why they had a helmet rule, and the response was that their insurers demanded it.  I then contacted those insurers and asked why they had such a rule, and the response was always that they didn't have one.  I don't remember individual details of which event or insurer, but the response was always the same.

If you want to confirm this, there is nothing stopping you adopting the same method.

Yeah, funny that you suddently can't remember the exact insurers but yet can categorically remember that they all gave you the same response.  Did you speak to head of underwriting?  Somebody working for a syndicate?  A person in a call centre who wouldn't know insurance if it slapped them in the face?  A broker?  Did you speak to just on emarket?  Multiple markets?

It is hardly funny that I can't remember inconsequential facts but remember the important ones.  That's the way memory works.

burtthebike wrote:

Yet another organisation so ill informed that they have a helmet rule:

"What do I need to bring with me to a cycling sportive?
Most importantly your bike and your helmet..........."

Many of these rides have this rule, and I've asked many times why they have it, and am invariably given some industrial grade BS.  The most usual is that the insurers demand it, except that when I contact those insurers, they haven't.

These kind of events with their unjustifiable rules are making helmet laws easier to implement and are reinforcing the perception that cycling is dangerous.  Thankfully, some organisations base their rules on proven facts, not myths, rumours and BS, so I'll continue riding with CUK and Audax, which have sensible rules.

I don't have much confidence in people organising events when they don't even know the most basic facts about cycling.

Never done a sportive that didn't have a compulsory helmet rule, and I personally have no problem with it. 

burtthebike wrote:

Many of these rides have this rule, and I've asked many times why they have it, and am invariably given some industrial grade BS.  The most usual is that the insurers demand it, except that when I contact those insurers, they haven't.

Hi burt, I can't help but wonder who you spoke to in the insurance companies?  

Is it possible that helmet wearing in not compulsory but a lack would dramatically increase the insurance costs?

Surely the only way to be certain of this point would be to see the insurance schedule issued with a list of terms and conditIons?

stomec wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Many of these rides have this rule, and I've asked many times why they have it, and am invariably given some industrial grade BS.  The most usual is that the insurers demand it, except that when I contact those insurers, they haven't.

Hi burt, I can't help but wonder who you spoke to in the insurance companies?  

Is it possible that helmet wearing in not compulsory but a lack would dramatically increase the insurance costs?

Surely the only way to be certain of this point would be to see the insurance schedule issued with a list of terms and conditIons?

It is possible, but when I've spoken to the insurers, they point blank deny that they have demanded a helmet rule.  While I haven't asked whether premiums would increase if there was no such rule, I'd be a bit surprised if the insurers hadn't mentioned that to me.  Insurers are experts in risk, and they do not demand that helmets be mandated, but organisers keep saying they do; it is a lie.  The organisers don't claim that the premiums would be increased if they didn't have a helmet rule, they just say that the insurance companies demand it.

It's just sloppy, incompetent organisers, trying desperately to justify the unjustifiable rule that they made up.

burtthebike wrote:

stomec wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Many of these rides have this rule, and I've asked many times why they have it, and am invariably given some industrial grade BS.  The most usual is that the insurers demand it, except that when I contact those insurers, they haven't.

Hi burt, I can't help but wonder who you spoke to in the insurance companies?  

Is it possible that helmet wearing in not compulsory but a lack would dramatically increase the insurance costs?

Surely the only way to be certain of this point would be to see the insurance schedule issued with a list of terms and conditIons?

It is possible, but when I've spoken to the insurers, they point blank deny that they have demanded a helmet rule.  While I haven't asked whether premiums would increase if there was no such rule, I'd be a bit surprised if the insurers hadn't mentioned that to me.  Insurers are experts in risk, and they do not demand that helmets be mandated, but organisers keep saying they do; it is a lie.  The organisers don't claim that the premiums would be increased if they didn't have a helmet rule, they just say that the insurance companies demand it.

It's just sloppy, incompetent organisers, trying desperately to justify the unjustifiable rule that they made up.

It's all in the wording though, if a company buys the cheaper insurance which does mandate the use of helmets then they can honestly say that the use of helmets is a condition of it's insurance.

A lot of insurers do not mandate the use of black boxes in the car, but if you chose that option then it is cheaper. Once you have purchased that insurance you would be perfectly correct to say that you have to have the black box connected in your car because it is mandated by your insurance.

*I am not saying that I know one way or the other, just saying that the use of the word mandated does not mean that it is universaly mandated, only that it is on the relevent policy purchased.

ClubSmed wrote:

It's all in the wording though, if a company buys the cheaper insurance which does mandate the use of helmets then they can honestly say that the use of helmets is a condition of it's insurance.

You're assuming, apparently without any proof, that such cheaper insurance exists, and that insurers give a discount for events which mandate helmets.  Since the insurance companies, experts in risk, know full well that helmets don't reduce risk, why would they give you a discount for something which doesn't reduce risk?

burtthebike wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

It's all in the wording though, if a company buys the cheaper insurance which does mandate the use of helmets then they can honestly say that the use of helmets is a condition of it's insurance.

You're assuming, apparently without any proof, that such cheaper insurance exists, and that insurers give a discount for events which mandate helmets.  Since the insurance companies, experts in risk, know full well that helmets don't reduce risk, why would they give you a discount for something which doesn't reduce risk?

I am not "assuming, apparently without any proof, that such cheaper insurance exists, and that insurers give a discount for events which mandate helmets". What I am saying is that the wording for the two sides (insurer and insured) are different. If you asked an insurance company if they mandated black boxes in cars then the answer would be no, if you took out a policy that had a black box requirement then you could claim that they are mandated by your insurance. I am just trying to say, as others have, that the question you should ask insurers is "Do you have policies that mandate helmet wearing in cycling events" rather than "Do you mandate helmet use in cycle events" as the two questions could illicit a different answer and still be correct.

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

It's all in the wording though, if a company buys the cheaper insurance which does mandate the use of helmets then they can honestly say that the use of helmets is a condition of it's insurance.

You're assuming, apparently without any proof, that such cheaper insurance exists, and that insurers give a discount for events which mandate helmets.  Since the insurance companies, experts in risk, know full well that helmets don't reduce risk, why would they give you a discount for something which doesn't reduce risk?

I am not "assuming, apparently without any proof, that such cheaper insurance exists, and that insurers give a discount for events which mandate helmets". What I am saying is that the wording for the two sides (insurer and insured) are different. If you asked an insurance company if they mandated black boxes in cars then the answer would be no, if you took out a policy that had a black box requirement then you could claim that they are mandated by your insurance. I am just trying to say, as others have, that the question you should ask insurers is "Do you have policies that mandate helmet wearing in cycling events" rather than "Do you mandate helmet use in cycle events" as the two questions could illicit a different answer and still be correct.

To sum up your argument "I have absolutely no proof of anything, but I'm going to carry on asserting it."

burtthebike wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

It's all in the wording though, if a company buys the cheaper insurance which does mandate the use of helmets then they can honestly say that the use of helmets is a condition of it's insurance.

You're assuming, apparently without any proof, that such cheaper insurance exists, and that insurers give a discount for events which mandate helmets.  Since the insurance companies, experts in risk, know full well that helmets don't reduce risk, why would they give you a discount for something which doesn't reduce risk?

I am not "assuming, apparently without any proof, that such cheaper insurance exists, and that insurers give a discount for events which mandate helmets". What I am saying is that the wording for the two sides (insurer and insured) are different. If you asked an insurance company if they mandated black boxes in cars then the answer would be no, if you took out a policy that had a black box requirement then you could claim that they are mandated by your insurance. I am just trying to say, as others have, that the question you should ask insurers is "Do you have policies that mandate helmet wearing in cycling events" rather than "Do you mandate helmet use in cycle events" as the two questions could illicit a different answer and still be correct.

To sum up your argument "I have absolutely no proof of anything, but I'm going to carry on asserting it."

I am not asserting anything so therefor do not need any proof. As I stated on my original post on this matter "I am not saying that I know one way or the other"
All I am doing is pointing out that the only "proof" that you are offering is the answer to a verbal question that you asked someone in an insurance company. This answer does not necessarily support your theory that insurers do not mandate cycle helmets on any policies unless you can provide the exact wording of the question and answer as well as the insurer in question and who you spoke to from there.
As far as I am concerned, no-one here has proven one way or the other that helmet use is mandated by the insurers of these events. However, you are the one who hijacked this thread to claim that the mandated by insurers line is false and yet offered nothing more than very vague hearsay evidence to support this claim.

I have at no point suggested that you are wrong, I have only pointed out how the "proof" that you offer could be made stronger if you wanted to continue with your claims.