Nationwide, compulsary helmet wearing for insurance cover

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Nationwide, compulsary helmet wearing for insurance cover

Postby Steady rider » 28 Jul 2017, 1:56pm

I have been in touch with Nationwide and hopefully they may reconsider with the evidence provided to them.

millimole
Posts: 514
Joined: 18 Feb 2007, 5:41pm
Location: Leicester

Re: Nationwide, compulsary helmet wearing for insurance cover

Postby millimole » 28 Jul 2017, 10:24pm

Steady rider wrote:I have been in touch with Nationwide and hopefully they may reconsider with the evidence provided to them.

I fear that only persistent public pressure and background diplomacy (hopefully from CUK /CTC) will be the only way they will reconsider. I don't think any amount of evidence presented by individuals will have any effect - but I hope I'm wrong.
Like any business they fear loss of reputation more than anything else, and I suspect there won't be enough head of steam on this to make them change their corporate mind without the added impetus of behind the scenes professional negotiations.


.
Leicester; Riding my Hetchins since 1971; Audaxing on my Dawes; Riding to work on a Decathlon Hoprider

Psamathe
Posts: 11292
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Nationwide, compulsary helmet wearing for insurance cover

Postby Psamathe » 28 Jul 2017, 10:39pm

millimole wrote:
Steady rider wrote:I have been in touch with Nationwide and hopefully they may reconsider with the evidence provided to them.

I fear that only persistent public pressure and background diplomacy (hopefully from CUK /CTC) will be the only way they will reconsider.....

CTC/CUK are not really in a position to argue against the helmet wearing requirement given how their own insurance is reported (on this forum) to also require helmet wearing.

hufty wrote:Don't forget that the notorious Cycling UK branded travel insurance doesn't provide cover if you're not wearing a helmet. That's Cycling UK, an officially pro-choice cycling organisation that should be fully conversant with the statistics. What hope for a building society?


Ian

millimole
Posts: 514
Joined: 18 Feb 2007, 5:41pm
Location: Leicester

Re: Nationwide, compulsary helmet wearing for insurance cover

Postby millimole » 29 Jul 2017, 8:34am

Agreed Ian - the only way CUK can negotiate with Nationwide would be on the promise of a commercial arrangement.
The Venn diagram of the number of CTC members & the number of Nationwide members is small, add in the number of those interested in the helmet debate and it becomes vanishingly small. But, a Venn diagram of CTC members and Potential Nationwide customers becomes much more interesting (as does Potential CUK members & Potential NW customers).
If CUK were to offer a partnership with NW in return for, say a review of helmet policy in 5 years time, whereby CUK 'promotes' NW as its preferred bank for members, and -importantly- looks favourable on NW when it renews its travel policy provider then their might be room for hope.
But, I'm not at all hopeful.


.
Leicester; Riding my Hetchins since 1971; Audaxing on my Dawes; Riding to work on a Decathlon Hoprider

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17924
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Nationwide, compulsary helmet wearing for insurance cover

Postby Vorpal » 29 Jul 2017, 9:55am

Members of Nationwide don't have to be CUK members to be opposed to the helmet requirement listed on the insurance.

They don't even need to be policy holders. Just Nationwide members.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15051
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Nationwide, compulsary helmet wearing for insurance cover

Postby mjr » 31 Jul 2017, 12:20pm

bertgrower wrote:I would like somebody who is a member of Nationwide to ask if they or their insurance brokers /underwrites would sign a undertaking that states that if a person who is covered by their travel insurance is involved in a cycling accident and it is proven in a court of law that the accident was caused by or the resulting injures made worse by the wearing of the helmet would nationwide it brokers /underwrites would pay out compensation?

Done. At some point they're probably going to block me.

bertgrower wrote:BTW Would anybody use this type of insurance for travel inside the UK,if yes does this mean that you would be covered if you did not wear a helmet?

Yes, but I expect some of the medical sections would be inoperative because the NHS means they're not needed. A strict reading would mean that they wouldn't pay out for things like curtailment if you'd been cycling without a helmet, but they say they'll be reasonable, which is either vaguely reassuring or reassuringly vague.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13905
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Nationwide, compulsary helmet wearing for insurance cover

Postby gaz » 31 Jul 2017, 4:25pm

Psamathe wrote:CTC/CUK are not really in a position to argue against the helmet wearing requirement given how their own insurance is reported (on this forum) to also require helmet wearing.

hufty wrote:Don't forget that the notorious Cycling UK branded travel insurance doesn't provide cover if you're not wearing a helmet. That's Cycling UK, an officially pro-choice cycling organisation that should be fully conversant with the statistics. What hope for a building society?

AFAICT the most recent forum discussion of the Cycling UK Travel Insurance policy can be found here.

Please note that gaz is not FCA regulated and cannot assess individual needs for insurance. You will not receive advice or recommendations from gaz about them. Please direct your queries to your chosen insurance provider, who may be either vaguely reassuring or reassuringly vague in their response (wonderful phrase, my thanks to mjr). Posted on a forum that contains track nuts and cannot be guaranteed track nut free.
2020 : To redundancy ... and beyond!

Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Nationwide, compulsary helmet wearing for insurance cover

Postby Steady rider » 31 Jul 2017, 5:53pm

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/about/have-your-say/agm
run for the benefit of our members


If members wish to cycle without a helmet, how does it help them to withdraw insurance cover?

It only affect those who wish to cycle without wearing a helmet and interferes with their holiday.

I was looking to see how AGM motions may be submitted.

This years AGM was on the 20 July, was their a motion requiring helmets to be worn for insurance cover?
Were they open with members about their intention to change the insurance cover aspects?

250 members required to put someone forward for the board. I think it may be worthwhile having a nomination if they did not change their policy or put a motion forward.

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/about/corpo ... management Chief Executive
He is currently Chairman of the British Triathlon Foundation Trust.

It may be the CE has a personal view on helmet use or people he associates with have a helmet promotional view?

https://www.britishtriathlon.org/news/n ... trust_3752

“As a keen triathlete I feel privileged and excited to have been asked to take on this non-executive role. The London Olympics showed to the world the true value and power of sport. It has brought communities together and has generated a feel good factor that can continue for generations to come.

His view of cycling may be inclined towards the sports /competitive side.

Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Nationwide, compulsary helmet wearing for insurance cover

Postby Steady rider » 15 Sep 2017, 6:09pm

I have intentions of protesting against the Nationwide policy. Nationwide say they have no plans to change the policy.

Accordingly, I may distribute information outside of their premises in protest.

Nationwide’s unjust cycle helmet insurance requirement

Nationwide has changed their FlexPlus account conditions, increasing the fee per month by 30%, from £10 to £13. They have also changed the travel insurance requirement and insist that a cycle helmet must be worn when cycling. Research over a period of 20 years has shown such a requirement is not justified.

Cycling UK is opposed to both cycle helmet laws and to helmet promotion campaigns because these are almost certainly detrimental to public health. Evidence shows that the health benefits of cycling are so much greater than the relatively low risks involved, that even if these measures caused only a very small reduction in cycle use, this would still almost certainly mean far more lives being lost through physical inactivity than helmets could possibly save, however effective.

In any case, there are serious doubts about the effectiveness of helmets. They are, and can only be, designed to withstand minor knocks and falls, not serious traffic collisions. Some evidence suggests they may in fact increase the risk of cyclists having falls or collisions in the first place, or suffering neck injuries.

In the UK, some 8,000 years of average cycling will produce one clinically severe head injury. For the average person cycling for 60 years, this relates to one severe head injury per 133 lifetimes of cycling, less than 1% risk per average lifetime.

Research has reported that helmet users have an increased accident rate over non-wearers. Erke and Elvik 2007 examined research from Australia and New Zealand and stated: "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent."

Porter 2016, from the USA, detailed that cyclist who wear a helmets had more than twice the odds of suffering an injury than cyclists not wearing helmets.

Robinson 1996 details the incidence of hitting their head/helmet in a cycling accident was "significantly higher for helmet wearers (8/40 vs 13/476, i.e. 20% vs 2.7%, p 0.00001)". A bare head width of approximately 150mm may avoid contact compared to a helmeted head at approximately 200mm width. Helmet wearers often report hitting their helmets and the 7 fold increase may have long term effects.

Nationwide are a disgrace to insist that cyclists wear helmets and especially without a legal requirement and they should scrap their policy of insisting cyclists wear helmets.
Helmet laws in Australia and New Zealand have discouraged cycling by more than 30%. For more information refer 'Weaknesses with a meta-analysis approach to assessing cycle helmets'. Feb 2017.
http://worldtransportjournal.com/wp-con ... eb-opt.pdf


Produced by Colin Clarke, email colinclarkecycling@hotmail.co.uk


York is near to where I live, but I could go to Hull, Leeds or any location within a few hours of York. Anyone who could assist in distributing the above leaflet would be welcome to join me.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17924
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Nationwide, compulsary helmet wearing for insurance cover

Postby Vorpal » 24 Nov 2017, 2:05pm

Nationwide apparently explained themselves, somewhat in July http://road.cc/content/news/226428-nati ... its-travel
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Nationwide, compulsary helmet wearing for insurance cover

Postby Steady rider » 24 Nov 2017, 6:27pm

It reports;
It said: “The change made to the policy concerning the wearing of bicycle helmets while cycling is intended to provide greater clarity regarding the ‘reasonable care’ we expect our customers to take while on holiday. This change is intended to help to protect our members’ welfare.


The evidence needs to be sound that the requirement will improve safety and not discourage cycling.
Members' welfare
relates to their freedoms/liberty, health/safety and enjoyment to name some.

Australia’s helmet law
The law in Victoria, resulted in 30 more teenagers wearing helmets compared with 623 fewer cycling, a drop of 48% .
For New South Wales the law resulted in 569 more children wearing helmets compared with 2658 fewer cycling, a drop of 44%.

New Zealand’s helmet law
New Zealand survey data from before their law 1989-1990 to after 2006-09, showed that average hours cycled per person reduced by 51%.

Research from 2007 reported: "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent."

A recent report detailed that cyclists wearing helmets had more than twice the odds of suffering an injury than cyclists not wearing helmets.

Increased risk of injury per cyclist since helmet laws were introduced
Several analyses have compared numbers of injuries with the numbers of cyclists. They all suggest that injuries per cyclist have increased from what would have been expected without helmet laws.
In New Zealand, from 1989 to 2011, average time spent cycling (on roads and footpaths) fell by 79% for children aged 5-12 (from 28 to 6 minutes per person per week) and 81% for 13-17 year olds (52 to 10 mins/person/week).
Adult cycling declined from 8 to 5 minutes/person/week then trended back up to 8 minutes. Graphs of cycle use over time provide strong evidence that the requirement to wear a helmet discouraged cycling. The reductions in cycling were accompanied by increased injury rates. Between 1989 and 2012, fatal or serious injuries per million hours of cycling increased by 86% for children (from 49 to 91), 181% for teenagers (from 18 to 51) and 64% for adults (from 23 to 38).

All of the above evidence was available to Nationwide. They provide no warning to their customers about evidence showing their safety may not be improved by helmet wearing. It is a bit like a doctor saying take these pills, they may protect you from sickness when on holiday and Nationwide saying you must take these pills to be covered for insurance purposes. Any possible adverse side effects needs to be explained. It needs Parliament to look at the evidence.