Cycling UK Forum

mjr wrote:Holidaysafe (1000m altitude limit!) and LV look relatively sane to me. Watch out!

My next tour goes over 3000M on road in the USA so I'll rule them out. So far anything I've found either excludes 3rd party risks in the USA, costs an arm and leg, or requires a helmet.

I'm actually leaning towards getting a helmet for the holiday.

As a matter of interest I got an online quote from holidaysafe. £117 for 45 days. OK. Add the activity level six pack to cover cycling above 1000m and it's an extra £176 and gewtting close to £300

irc wrote:

mjr wrote:Holidaysafe (1000m altitude limit!) and LV look relatively sane to me. Watch out!

My next tour goes over 3000M on road in the USA so I'll rule them out. So far anything I've found either excludes 3rd party risks in the USA, costs an arm and leg, or requires a helmet.

I'm actually leaning towards getting a helmet for the holiday.

As a matter of interest I got an online quote from holidaysafe. £117 for 45 days. OK. Add the activity level six pack to cover cycling above 1000m and it's an extra £176 and gewtting close to £300

Beware if you do buy a helmet in the UK

The low and pointless standards required to sell a helmet in the UK (EN1078) is not recognised by some events organisers in the UK as adequate, and in the US again some organisations will not accept EN1078 as adequate.

If you do by a helmet ensure that it passes one of the Snell (B90/ B95) or CPSC standards

The former test at a higher standard than the latter, and the CPSC is the legal standard that is required for salon the US

Cunobelin wrote:

irc wrote:

mjr wrote:Holidaysafe (1000m altitude limit!) and LV look relatively sane to me. Watch out!

My next tour goes over 3000M on road in the USA so I'll rule them out. So far anything I've found either excludes 3rd party risks in the USA, costs an arm and leg, or requires a helmet.

I'm actually leaning towards getting a helmet for the holiday.

As a matter of interest I got an online quote from holidaysafe. £117 for 45 days. OK. Add the activity level six pack to cover cycling above 1000m and it's an extra £176 and gewtting close to £300

Beware if you do buy a helmet in the UK

The low and pointless standards required to sell a helmet in the UK (EN1078) is not recognised by some events organisers in the UK as adequate, and in the US again some organisations will not accept EN1078 as adequate.

If you do by a helmet ensure that it passes one of the Snell (B90/ B95) or CPSC standards

The former test at a higher standard than the latter, and the CPSC is the legal standard that is required for salon the US

Just out of interest, these policies (and CTC) who require wearing a helmet - do the specify any standards of type of helmet ?

Ian

ust out of interest, these policies (and CTC) who require wearing a helmet - do the specify any standards of type of helmet ?

None of the policy wordings I've seen or the e-mail replies I have mention any particular helmet standard.

irc wrote:

ust out of interest, these policies (and CTC) who require wearing a helmet - do the specify any standards of type of helmet ?

None of the policy wordings I've seen or the e-mail replies I have mention any particular helmet standard.

This rather confirms Goldacre's and Speigelhalter's point: that the value of helmets is more symbolic than practical.
Even to helmeteers.

Mike Sales wrote:

irc wrote:

ust out of interest, these policies (and CTC) who require wearing a helmet - do the specify any standards of type of helmet ?

None of the policy wordings I've seen or the e-mail replies I have mention any particular helmet standard.

This rather confirms Goldacre's and Speigelhalter's point: that the value of helmets is more symbolic than practical.
Even to helmeteers.

I notice
helmet reviews almost never discuss effectiveness.

irc wrote:

mjr wrote:Holidaysafe (1000m altitude limit!) and LV look relatively sane to me. Watch out!

My next tour goes over 3000M on road in the USA so I'll rule them out. So far anything I've found either excludes 3rd party risks in the USA, costs an arm and leg, or requires a helmet.

I'm actually leaning towards getting a helmet for the holiday.

As a matter of interest I got an online quote from holidaysafe. £117 for 45 days. OK. Add the activity level six pack to cover cycling above 1000m and it's an extra £176 and gewtting close to £300

I think requiring an unspecified helmet when cycling is code for not wanting cyclists.

I'd love more tips for insurers who allow cycle touring, ideally no altitude limit or TP exclusions, who aren't silly about diagnosed chronic illnesses. It seems a really limited pool.

mjr wrote:

irc wrote:

mjr wrote:Holidaysafe (1000m altitude limit!) and LV look relatively sane to me. Watch out!

My next tour goes over 3000M on road in the USA so I'll rule them out. So far anything I've found either excludes 3rd party risks in the USA, costs an arm and leg, or requires a helmet.

I'm actually leaning towards getting a helmet for the holiday.

As a matter of interest I got an online quote from holidaysafe. £117 for 45 days. OK. Add the activity level six pack to cover cycling above 1000m and it's an extra £176 and gewtting close to £300

I think requiring an unspecified helmet when cycling is code for not wanting cyclists.

I'd love more tips for insurers who allow cycle touring, ideally no altitude limit or TP exclusions, who aren't silly about diagnosed chronic illnesses. It seems a really limited pool.

My travel insurance is with Snowcard. Probably "not cheap", but I use them because I ski away from pistes/resorts, which is another awkward area to insure. They seem sane in what they say about cycling, there is an 3000m altitude threshold on some of the policy options, but a higher option exists should it be needed. You might have to discuss pre-existing medical stuff with them, but in my experience they will at least answer questions and discuss matters.

- Nigel

Mike Sales wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:

irc wrote:
None of the policy wordings I've seen or the e-mail replies I have mention any particular helmet standard.

This rather confirms Goldacre's and Speigelhalter's point: that the value of helmets is more symbolic than practical.
Even to helmeteers.

I notice
helmet reviews almost never discuss effectiveness.

I brought this upon with a cycling magazine a few years ago, the reply was that the standards were irrelevant as they all passed the EN1078

I also think that I may have been responsible for changing the UK Cycling events website!

It was always fun to point out that their "terms" included:

It is mandatory that all riders wear a safety approved cycling helmet complying with latest ANSI Z90/4 or SNELL standards.

Thus implying that the EN1078 was not acceptable as the required standards were higher.

This has now changed to include EN1078:

It is mandatory that all riders wear a safety approved cycling helmet complying with latest EN1078, ANSI Z90/4 or SNELL standards.

Nigel wrote:You might have to discuss pre-existing medical stuff with them, but in my experience they will at least answer questions and discuss matters.

Ah! I probably should have said that I strongly prefer automated online medical screening because it very quickly starts taking a long time once you start phoning multiple insurers up to answer very similar questions and get stupidly high additional premiums quoted back to you - or even declined in some cases.

Cunobelin wrote:This has now changed to include EN1078:

It is mandatory that all riders wear a safety approved cycling helmet complying with latest EN1078, ANSI Z90/4 or SNELL standards.

http://www.bhsi.org/stdcomp.htm says the ANSI Z90.4 standard was withdrawn in 1994. I think the committee has been disbanded since then. I suspect any helmet produced when that standard was relevant will have failed through old age by now unless specially preserved.

Inclusion of a reference to ANSI helmets is a sign that the author is not keeping up with recent safety practices - don't give them any money. If it's an event, they will be taking unnecessary risks with your life and limbs, like bleating on about clothes and hats instead of giving better safety advice. If they're an insurer, their risk management is probably rubbish, so you'd end up paying higher premiums to make up for how many bad risks they accept.

mjr wrote:

Nigel wrote:You might have to discuss pre-existing medical stuff with them, but in my experience they will at least answer questions and discuss matters.

Ah! I probably should have said that I strongly prefer automated online medical screening because it very quickly starts taking a long time once you start phoning multiple insurers up to answer very similar questions and get stupidly high additional premiums quoted back to you - or even declined in some cases.

Related note of caution (to anybody with pre-existing conditions): Some time ago I was warned by my GP that when you are in some "challenging" country with a virtual medical emergency the 1st thing (before approving anything) your medical insurance will do is call your GP to check and that your <insert chronic medical condition> is in no way related to your <immediate need>, that you did not declare the unrelated medical condition will provide them reason to void the policy. So forget to tell them about the e.g. lump being monitored of no concern and you may suddenly find yourself without cover for that previously unknown (and unrelated) heart condition you now urgently need medical treatment for.

Ian

Psamathe wrote:the 1st thing (before approving anything) your medical insurance will do is call your GP to check and that your <insert chronic medical condition> is in no way related to your <immediate need>, that you did not declare the unrelated medical condition will provide them reason to void the policy.

I don't understand: why would they call to check your <insert chronic medical condition> is in no way related to your <immediate need>? If you didn't declare the unrelated medical condition, how do they know about it to ask?

Also, surely the GP won't tell them anything with checking your consent, like they ask you before disclosing things to life insurers? After all, it's an insurer who's asking, not even another medical practitioner and definitely not part of the NHS.

Are you sure you understood correctly? But I'd expect a false declaration to catch you out eventually, probably with you being left with a stonking bill when the insurer does find out, so I agree it's a bad idea to fail to declare medical conditions, despite my annoying situation. In addition to the condition I've written about elsewhere and I currently take a cocktail for - which is itself annoying because some insurers ask for number of medications and not what they are - I've also got an apparently-harmless syndrome diagnosed and monitored which would never have been detected without the blood tests for the other!

mjr wrote:

Psamathe wrote:the 1st thing (before approving anything) your medical insurance will do is call your GP to check and that your <insert chronic medical condition> is in no way related to your <immediate need>, that you did not declare the unrelated medical condition will provide them reason to void the policy.

Because any possible excuse to not pay out is why insurance companies employ so many lawyers and para legals .....

mjr wrote:

Psamathe wrote:the 1st thing (before approving anything) your medical insurance will do is call your GP to check and that your <insert chronic medical condition> is in no way related to your <immediate need>, that you did not declare the unrelated medical condition will provide them reason to void the policy.

I don't understand: why would they call to check your <insert chronic medical condition> is in no way related to your <immediate need>? If you didn't declare the unrelated medical condition, how do they know about it to ask?

Also, surely the GP won't tell them anything with checking your consent, like they ask you before disclosing things to life insurers? After all, it's an insurer who's asking, not even another medical practitioner and definitely not part of the NHS.

Are you sure you understood correctly? But I'd expect a false declaration to catch you out eventually, probably with you being left with a stonking bill when the insurer does find out, so I agree it's a bad idea to fail to declare medical conditions, despite my annoying situation. In addition to the condition I've written about elsewhere and I currently take a cocktail for - which is itself annoying because some insurers ask for number of medications and not what they are - I've also got an apparently-harmless syndrome diagnosed and monitored which would never have been detected without the blood tests for the other!

Absolutely 110% sure I understood correctly. They don't ask about <insert chronic medical condition> they ask about everything on your medical record. I assume that you grant (directly or indirectly in some small print somewhere) them permission to get at your medical records when you make a claim (e.g. when you are stuck in hospital abroad wanting them to approve treatment costs) so they can make judgements about the treatments proposed for you.

In fact it's even worse because a GP does not always tell you exactly what you are suffering from (certainly one has tried to "skirt round the issue" with me before and it was only through direct asking that I got the full details)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/lifeassurance/9705205/The-unknown-illnesses-that-could-scupper-your-insurance.html (2012) wrote:...
Claims can be turned down if your doctor hasn't told you what you are suffering from.

Consumers are being advised to check their medical records before buying travel, life or health insurance to make sure they give correct answers to the complex questionnaires that they are increasingly required to complete.

The Financial Ombudsman Service said one in four of the complaints it receives about travel insurance related to claims that have been turned down because holidaymakers failed to disclose pre-existing conditions. In addition, two out of every 100 claims for life and critical illness cover are rejected because applicants did not disclose their full medical history.

I am just repeating what GP said warning me - he seems a good GP so I rate what he says. He also said how for non-crtitcal pre-existing conditions insurance companies sometimes write to GP for precise details of the condition before accepting the application/providing cover (and no mention that I have to authorise his replay to the - which I assume would be implied in my application for cover).

I claim no expertise other than in what I've been told by my GP.

Ian