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

ChairRDRF 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.

 

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:

ChairRDRF wrote:

Cygnus 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.

 

 

And you know, there are some people who won't do the sacrifice! They won't! You can't talk to them...

 

I say, if it only saves one life, then it's worth it...

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:

Arno du Galibier wrote:

ChairRDRF wrote:

Cygnus 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.

 

 

And you know, there are some people who won't do the sacrifice! They won't! You can't talk to them...

 

I say, if it only saves one life, then it's worth it...

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.

Shower helmets? Interesting, in our house it's stairs, a significant cause of injury I understand.

ConcordeCX 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.

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:

ConcordeCX 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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

The insurance company 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?

Assuming that Nationwide have made this decision based on objective evidence, it would be interesting to see their data.

ConcordeCX 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.

I'll have you know a sacrifice saved my life!!

ConcordeCX 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.

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:

ConcordeCX 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.

Does it have to be a ram, or will any other ruminant do?  Do you get extra credit for a black goat, for example?

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:

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.

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.

BarryBianchi wrote:

* Opens keg, puts feet up*..

Make sure you wear a helmet and a spine-protector: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1460408611434382

Ush wrote:

BarryBianchi wrote:

* Opens keg, puts feet up*..

Make sure you wear a helmet and a spine-protector: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1460408611434382

That's odd.  Often get head pain after a keg, but back's usually OK....

BarryBianchi wrote:

Ush wrote:

BarryBianchi wrote:

* Opens keg, puts feet up*..

Make sure you wear a helmet and a spine-protector: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1460408611434382

That's odd.  Often get head pain after a keg, but back's usually OK....

So is someone's head when they don't wear a helmet, but you never know - better order that back protector asap...

BarryBianchi wrote:

* Opens keg, puts feet up*..

You might need two.

Kegs, not feet.