 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Essential Travel Insurance is insisting that its policyholders where a helmet when skiing or boarding. More info at PlanetSki. First descent down a slippery slope?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I seem to recall they ran a few surveys this summer about peoples opinions about wearing helmets and the relationship between wearing a helmet and insurance.
I wonder if the survey results back up what they were originally thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Wonder how long it is before the first claim against them citing those stats about head injuries increasing with helmet wear? The only ones I see benefiting to any real extent from this are lawyers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
rob@rar, Hmm, so when one of their policyholders falls and has a non head related injury such as a broken wrist will they reject the claim if the policyholder wasn't wearing a helmet?
(Edited to make clear I was considering the case of the policyholder not wearing a helmet when the accident happened).
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Sun 4-11-12 15:12; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
This doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. They think they can offer a more competitive premium by reducing the number/severity of accidents they have to pay for; you can choose to go with somebody else willing to let you pay them extra to cover the extra risk.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Sun 4-11-12 20:33; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Absolute stupidity. Surely people will jsut go elsewhere to insure themselves?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ricklovesthepowder, Why? I always wear a helmet - and if that gets me a lower premium due to statistically smaller risk it seems good to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But will this result in lower premiums?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they don't offer lower premiums (all else being equal) then they'll lose customers, and so almost certainly change their mind.
If all the insurers switched to requiring helmets without lowering the premiums to reflect the change in risk, it would give an incentive for somebody to undercut them all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
it would give an incentive for somebody to undercut them all
|
only in the unlikely event that all the others insurers had been mistaken in their calculation of the risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
They seem from the website to require you to wear a helmet when participating in any winter sport and included in their definition are snow shoeing, ice skating, langlauf, (non competitive) dog sledding, and being in a sledge drawn by a horse or reindeer.
This is the problem with poorly defined blanket requirements, it just creates another way for the insurance industry to get out of paying up. And will result in money conscious Brits wearing their helmets in the hot tub.
It would be much more principled for them to run their campaign, tie up with their partners and promote research but without tying it into premium reduction.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Guardian on why not to bother with travel insurance http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/nov/02/never-get-travel-insurance?intcmp=239 in the EHIC zone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guess the Guardian journo never goes skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Wait Wait, ok I have my popcorn resume this is going to be comedy GOLD!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
RobinS, good for you, but they should just offer a reduced premium if you wear a helmet rather than say they won't insure people who don't wear one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
they should just offer a reduced premium if you wear a helmet rather than say they won't insure people who don't wear one.
|
why should they? They're running a business in a competitive market; they might just decide they will make more money from people who do wear helmets. They might be wrong, of course, but their whole business relies on such calculations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
pam w, but surely they would make more money to offer a premium anyway to those not wanting to wear one? The helmet debate has gone on for far to long and has become tiresome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Ricklovesthepowder, once the non-helmet-wearers aren't being subsidised, their premiums will be uncompetitive - so why would the insurer bother trying to sell to that market?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
RobinS, what statistical link, reference please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
but surely they would make more money to offer a premium anyway to those not wanting to wear one?
|
they presumably don't think so. There are other insurance companies who offer cover only to certain groups - e.g. those who offer car insurance cover to over-50s only. If you go to SAGA and say "well I'm only 34 but I don't mind paying a bit extra because my age-group has more accidents than the over 50s" I imagine they'd tell you to get lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Here's another useless fact. Almost every adult that I ski with in Scotland is uninsured and wears a helmet, but almost every adult that I ski with in the Alps is insured and doesn't.
The skiers in the two groups are quite different though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
finestgreen, I don't think this is an underwriting, risk book, led strategy i believe this is a marketing strategy; the same as insurance companies mentioned above. Join our club because you wear a helmet, because you wear a helmet we think you are a sensible sort and we'll offer you a keener price. The price may not be better at all its the perception and the positive reinforcement that you are doing the right thing or in the case of car insurance a good driver. The risk is immaterial as that can be managed through the premium and underwriting criteria (small print).
If we take at face value the other peer review research linked to elsewhere today (although its only a press release summary so useless), with only 1 in 5 accidents involved a head injury (very loose term and small percentage, should we have a look at the 80%) wearing a helmet is hardly going to reduce your premium significantly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
"with only 1 in 5 accidents involved a head injury (very loose term and small percentage, should we have a look at the 80%) wearing a helmet is hardly going to reduce your premium significantly."
It's not the frequency of head injuries versus other types of claim, but how much they pay out on head injury claims versus other types of injury. Presumably the insurer in question believes in the long term they will pay out less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with the guy in the Guardian. That's the first non-hysterical article I've ever read on the subject.
There's some case history from cycling of bad car drivers trying to reduce their liability when they cause head injuries to cyclists which could possibly have been reduced by wearing a helmet:
http://www.lyonsdavidson.co.uk/news/152/cycle-helmets-safety-and-the-legal-standpoint
In summary, as the collisions which cause these types of injury are at over 12mph, and helmets are useless over that speed, the drivers have not yet succeeded in squirming out of any of their responsibility.
Of course if you want to actually reduce road-traffic head injuries, the best thing would be for the car drivers and passengers to wear helmets.
Snow sports helmets are a little different, but the maximum effective speed is only a little higher and easily exceeded by novices. So the next logical step on the slippery slope would be the insurance company
declining to cover you if your mobile phone shows you exceeded that speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Well, according to www.ski-injury.com, run by a guy who looks closely at all this (well worth having a good read of the site), the idea that 20% of accidents involved a head injury, is baloney. The graph below shows head/face and I suspect a lot of them are face:
We all ski or board here and we all know people who have had injuries. I think, if 1:5 of 'em were having head injuries, we'd be talking about it as much as ACLs, breaks etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Bode Swiller,
Those statistics are completely compatible with 1:5 accidents involve the head, there may be many accidents with more than one injury.
(Though I am a bit of a sceptic on much of the helmet research)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...and besides not every injury will cost your travel insurer the same.
Fair point though, maybe it is just a marketing strategy. But what does it matter either way? They're entitled to offer to insure whoever they want for whatever cost they want. They're not doing anything unreasonable or sneaky. You're perfectly free to vote with your wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| T Bar wrote: |
Bode Swiller,
Those statistics are completely compatible with 1:5 accidents involve the head... |
I guess you could argue that 100% of accidents involve the head. Anyway, I have no idea how you can magically make 13.7% of "head/face" injuries become 20% "involve the head".
Based on all the evidence I've seen, if you want to drastically reduce serious head injuries, you'd simply insist that people ski above the tree line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Bode Swiller,
If you have an accident and bash your knee and head 50 % of the injuries in the sample are to the head but 100% of the accident sampled had a head injury involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Don't have a problem with the Guardian guy or the principle of self insurance - 3rd party liability though is something to think about if you do a sport where you might hurt people.
Equally - don't have a problem with an insurer narrowing its pool of cover. Only when insurers effectively act as a cartel in imposing standard terms does it become a problem. We've seen this in the creeping reduction in off-piste cover (possibly because a lot of the underwriters for "branded" policies are the same).
Anyone know if motor insurance will pay out if you're not wearing a seatbelt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
T Bar, have you had a blow to the head?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| Don't have a problem with the Guardian guy or the principle of self insurance |
Wish I could afford to self insure for the potential cost of a heli rescue. If I didn't have an annual policy I don't think I'd bother with travel insurance for things like a weekend trip to Paris, but for skiing (or any activity holiday where there is a higher risk of accident and subsequent recovery costs) I think it's prudent to have some kind of policy in place. I've just renewed my Carte Neige policy and it cost €45 - that's not a lot of money for considerable peace of mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Whilst this all seems a sensible thing to do... I am just not sure how it can logically work...
I snowboard and always vowed that as soon as I travelled fast enough to hurt myself I would wear a helmet... I have had several big falls over the last few years form pushing myself, and I can assure anyone that doesn't wear a helmet that I was pretty glad I had one on...
However, that is 'my' choice and you regularly see Pros or just folk hooning it around without lids on... 'Their' choice... My moto is that if I am not falling over, I am not pushing myself enough...!!!! (There are some days when I don't push myself before folks start banging on about 'enjoying the sport'  )
I cannot stand this prescriptive society that we have become... Where folk are not allowed to be responsible for their own choices. On another note, how is an insurance company going to know if a helmet was worn or not...? And then there is the point that Alastair Pinkbrings up...
Leave it as it is...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Wondered if there was some commercial deal between insurer and helmet mfr. Be a bit pointless now that helmet use must be well in excess of 80-90% now? Or at least certainly appears that the silly hat brigade are almost extinct compared to helmet wearers. Next they'll be writing in some clause about the helmet being no more than 3 years old or something, as the polystyrene degrades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| Anyone know if motor insurance will pay out if you're not wearing a seatbelt? |
There are quite a few that have in their Ts & Cs that they won't pay out if you are over the drink drive limit, and the police normally breathalyse everyone at the scene of an accident. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, you cause an accident because you were drunk, they pay out for the other party but you cannot claim for your car or injury because you did something fundamentally stupid.
On this issue, it seems fairly straightforward. Those of us who wear helmets are able to use this company, and might get a better deal as a result, those who don't will not be able to and have to go to the other insurance companies to get their cover. That might be cheaper, it might not. The insurance company is entitled to set out its stall, and you should always read the small print, so you either buy or you don't. If they lose a load of customers as a result of imposing this, I suspect they will stop doing it.
On the basis that a significant number of winter sports holiday makers are apparently not getting any kind of travel insurance, I think this is likely to be a long way from making a difference for many, just having cover that includes winter sports would be a big step forward.
I am in favour of companies that cater for me and target me as a customer. I am someone who always skis in a helmet, so all good if they can offer me a better deal for the same level of cover as a result. If they can't, I'd just carry on with the company I am with now. This is obviously marketing or the accountants looking for getout clauses, but I'm ok with it.
Interesting that my car insurance is expensive despite having more than 10 years no claims bonus because other men of my age who drive the mileage I do have fairly major accidents now and again, and if I could be differentiated from these higher risk drivers somehow then I'd be all for it. Of course, I don't expect those higher risk drivers to be in favour of that - I am currently keeping their premiums down by driving very sensibly, if they could be identified (through black box recorders and similar) then their premiums would go up and mine down. That would be nice. I see helmet use in a similar way - perhaps across the snowsports population it is an indicator of someone who has a lower risk threshold or is at least doing their best to mitigate risk, and if so I am happy to be in the low risk cheaper insurance camp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt they'd lose much custom. The average 1 week per year ski punter books via a major tour op. and probably has either no insurance at all or buys the bundled ski/holiday insurance, while the typical ski enthusiast probably already wears a helmet. So I call it some kind of marketing thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
andy, it's nothing like 80-90%. But that's another matter. I'd quite like it to get to 100% and then we'll see that head injuries and death will still happen at the normal rate. According to the Karl Ettlinger research, 84% of skiers travel in excess of 19mph (excludes people in lessons and ski patrollers). That's way in excess of the speed needed to kill you with or without a lid if you hit say, a tree, head on... and lots of people especially in Norh America do just that each season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Monium wrote: |
| I see helmet use in a similar way - perhaps across the snowsports population it is an indicator of someone who has a lower risk threshold or is at least doing their best to mitigate risk, and if so I am happy to be in the low risk cheaper insurance camp. |
It's not a great idea to hit your head with or without a helmet. Mitigating risk is about mountaincraft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| Anyone know if motor insurance will pay out if you're not wearing a seatbelt? |
As far as I recall, in the days before "Clunk Click" became compulsory or the norm, the Courts DID deduct 25% off the damages for non-wearers of seat-belts. Not sure if that's still the case but you can kinda see the logical progression. Wonder if the same principal applies to cyclists injured in a collision with a car?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
