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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.