 Poster: A snowHead
|
The issue is really whether insurance companies can or should dictate standards - IN ANYTHING.
I would argue not. It is a modern blight being told all the time "We are not insured for that." It is for the oil industry to set standards for operating oil rigs. It is for airlines to set standards for cabin crew to assist passengers. It is for sporting associations to set standards for their sports. It is for skiers to set standards for skiing. It is a voluntary activity. It is not the business of the insurance industry to tell us what to do or how to do it.
All we need from the insurance industry is a price to cover the risks arising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
Hit the road and you don't slide too much eh? Hit the kerb with head and you're toast with or without helmet.
|
Well the ambulance driver said I must have slid about 10 feet before smacking into the kerb and fracturing my skull  Don't remember a thing about it though, but I did start wearing a helmet after that.
This was at a time when I was riding Regional and National Cyclo-Cross championships and considered myself to be a good bike rider/handler. There was no-one else involved in my accident, I suspect I just over-cooked a bend.
The times I have bashed my head skiing/boarding have been as a result of something stupid, catching an edge, tripping over my own feet etc, no-one else involved and not trying anything fancy. For me I am glad I was wearing a helmet and will continue to do so to protect myself against myeslf
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
kevindonkleywood, The Flying Snowplough, the dribbling, urine-soaked long-term care isn't covered by travel insurance so not relevant in an argument about travel insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| kevindonkleywood, The Flying Snowplough, the dribbling, urine-soaked long-term care isn't covered by travel insurance so not relevant in an argument about travel insurance. |
I was thinking about this myself. Presumably though, the costs of any related long term care arising from damaged caused to skier Y by skier X would be covered under skier X's insurance policy. Negligence would need to be proved, obviously.
So maybe the move is to try and reduce the potential for liability claims by creating a trend for other insurance companies' clients to wear helmets, thus reducing the risk of, or resulting claim size of a head-injury related incident. Or maybe it's just to introduce another element of "contributory negligence" in liability claims, where the insurer of the accident causer pays out substantially reduced amounts if they can prove that the accident victim contributed in some way to their own misfortune.
Which ever way you look at things, someone's insurance company will pick up the tab for the results of a serious injury, so one can understand moves in the industry to reduce the potential payout on head injuries, either by reducing the number of such injuries or by getting it accepted that a non-helmeted victim is partially responsible for their misfortune and thus not deserving of a full payout.
I guess the same arguments were had about seatbelts. In our own isolated world, we drive safely and don't need a seatbelt. But we are not isolated, and if we have a crash that isn't out fault without a seatbelt then claiming compensation for the damage caused by the resulting impact with the windscreen is quite a challenge.
Ultimately, I can only see this going one way, and I've invested in helmet manufacturers only this morning.  Since no-one can really go skiing without insurance, the insurance companies can effectively force helmet wearing to be mandatory in a way that is impossible for bikes, since no-one (or hardly anyone) gets specific insurance for cycling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
since no-one (or hardly anyone) gets specific insurance for cycling.
|
Don't give them ideas
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| The Flying Snowplough wrote: |
| .....I guess the same arguments were had about seatbelts....... |
I think you'll find the actuarial statistics were a lot more clear for seat belts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| The Flying Snowplough wrote: |
| .....I guess the same arguments were had about seatbelts....... |
I think you'll find the actuarial statistics were a lot more clear for seat belts. |
Most likely, but there must be some reason behind the moves, as insurance companies are usually happy to charge handsomely for predictable, unconcentrated risks. Maybe it is just a marketing ploy or maybe there are some solid numbers out there. Mind you, insurance companies don't need to justify something in the way that legislation needs to be justified. The industry just needs to agree to all refuse to cover non-helmeted skiers for head injuries and it's a done deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Flying Snowplough, yes, obviously, if someone skis into you and it's their fault (and they hang around to face the music) then you have a claim against them which might get paid out by an insurance company if the person is insured. Lot's of "ifs" in all that. But, if your injury is self-inflicted (ie you simply lose control and head into the trees) then you're on your own. In that scenario the travel insurer is looking at a rescue bill and a repatriation with the hospital bit probably covered by EHIC. In other words, not much more costly than a broken arm.
Seatbelt argument doesn't wash. Before seatbelts people were snuffing it left right and centre, impaled by their steering column or flung through the windscreen. And there were passengers needing protection too. Even minor prangs could result in serious injury or death. Crushed baby on mummy's lap was popular. Skiing just doesn't compare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| The Flying Snowplough wrote: |
| .....The industry just needs to agree to all refuse to cover non-helmeted skiers for head injuries and it's a done deal. |
Firstly, 'the industry' actually has to want to do that. Secondly, - it needs to watch out that it is not forming a cartel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, I'm not really pro or anti, tbh. I wear my "lid" for a variety of reasons and I'll stick with it. Other folk can do what they like, so long as they ski responsibly, don't push in and don't swear on the slopes! I was just debating from the insurance industry angle, to explore why there are moves in this controversial direction. I'm certainly not justifying helmet weating on the grounds that it is as significant as seat belt wearing. I only raised that issue to emphasise the fact that we are at the mercy of events we can't control and to highlight the potential "contributory negligence" angle if helmet wearing becomes the norm.
achilles, agreed, but if things add up financially in the insurance world, they have a habit of happening. Ultimately, if there's only insurance with a mandatory helmet clause available then we'll all waer helmets. I'm pretty sure that no Snowhead will hang up their skis over the issue of helmets if push came to shove. If the choice is helmeted skiing or unisured skiing then the answer is helmeted skiing, surely, even if we're incandescent with rage that the choice of unhelmeted insured skiing no longer exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| The Flying Snowplough wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| The Flying Snowplough wrote: |
| .....I guess the same arguments were had about seatbelts....... |
I think you'll find the actuarial statistics were a lot more clear for seat belts. |
Most likely, but there must be some reason behind the moves, as insurance companies are usually happy to charge handsomely for predictable, unconcentrated risks. Maybe it is just a marketing ploy or maybe there are some solid numbers out there. Mind you, insurance companies don't need to justify something in the way that legislation needs to be justified. The industry just needs to agree to all refuse to cover non-helmeted skiers for head injuries and it's a done deal. |
It isn't "moves", or "companies". It is one person on a crusade, who is trying to drag his own company into doing it, then expecting that others will follow.
Unless they can find reasonable actuarial evidence it seems unlikely that many will follow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
If one has to ski defensively then ski off peak season and going to quiet resorts would help.
Likewise spending time on red and black runs could be safer than the green and blue slopes as piste users there are fewer and they generally have a better control of themselves. It may sound strange but that is my experience.
I really see no point in wearing a helmet on a deserted piste when all I do is to ski for enjoyment instead for speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| saikee wrote: |
| ........Likewise spending time on red and black runs could be safer than the green and blue slopes as piste users there are fewer and they generally have a better control of themselves...... |
I have been taken out from above by a fallen skier sliding into me on the Super Diable black at Les Deux Alpes; I slid along way before I could stop. And IME Valentin (again a black) can be an accident waiting to happen as those skiing beyond their ability there regularly fall and plummet down on the home run in the afternoon. Basically, it depends on the resort and local habit what and when pistes are hazardous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
When it comes to the number of skiers trying a piste beyond their ability I would have thought there are more of them on a blue or red run than a black.
A black run can be more dangerous if it lacks snow or partly frozen though thus yes it depends on the resort. From my own experience there seems to be more crowded and the skiers are more venturous in a French black than a Austria, Swiss, Italian or American black. More users can also degrade the run faster and to a poorer condition. My memory of icy black runs is curiously confined to the trips in France only.
In late Jan this year I went down a steep red and saw a young couple sitting on their bottoms to go down the slope using the snowboard as brake one step at a time. Not only they did it safely but they also stayed away from the groomed area and not hindering other piste users. There seems to be less learner skiers in Switzerland, Austria and to a less extent Italy than France and their skiers are generally more disciplined. It is also true that Switzerland and Austria do not have green runs and their beginners tend to go to small and cheaper local resorts.
I could be wrong but I believe skiers doing off peak trips to countries other than France may find the necessity of wearing helmet somewhat different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Head injuries are very common amongst footballers. It is estimated that the highest number of head injuries and concussions in sport are experienced by footballers, yet there are no premiership footballers (except Peter Cech - remember his head injury?) that wear helmets.
Perhaps it's time to stop singling out skiers and snowboarders and look at getting footballers all to wear helmets too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Even if I did wear a sweat cap, i would not buy insurance from a company that insisited that I wear one.
I do believe that IF I had a fall and hit my head, then wearing a helmet WOULD reduce or prevent a head injury, even I nor anyone else could seriously argue with that.
I do know that from my motorcycling and mountain biking days as well as skiing that the more protection i wear, the more risks I take and the more likely I have a crash. I frequently rode motorbikes around fields without a helmet but rode in a very different, defensive manner than if I were wearing a helmet, similarly riding to work 2 miles away with just my work clothes on, I rode much more defensively than if I had my full leathers on.
To reduce accidents and collisions on the slopes, perhaps helmets should be banned altogether!!!!????
When I'm on our Tandem on the quiet forest tracks with our disabled 11 yr old on the back, I do not ride in a way that would give the slightest risk of falling off so I do not see the point of wearing a helmet in that case, if we use the tandem on a busy road, then I would consider wearing a helmet.
When I'm on my own bike, going downhill over rocks between trees, on goes the helmet, but it comes off again for the long slow drag back uphill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Before helmet was mandatory on motorbike tears would come out if one rode above 100mph.
Now many bikes come with fairing everybody can do 150 to 180mph without trouble wearing a full face helmet. If an accident happens few of them can survive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
I also cycle and do not wear a helmet. I am still able to get insurance through British Cycling. I would have though (only thought) that the roads of the UK were slightly more dangerous than the ski slopes. This bloke hasn't got shares in Giro has he.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
i think wearing a is a good idea. i was hit in the back by a snowboarder going at full pelt. Then knocked out (this is with the helmet) and told on waking up in hospital the only reason your alive was the helmet on your head. i was hit from behind the helmet in no way constricts my vision. (i have some of the best goggles on the market in terms of visibility) as to comments on sitting ducks. i was skiing in control on a quiet piste. the guy who hit me didnt look as he made his turn. It would be a safer is people rode in control!i am a ski instructor, i know about skiing safely sometimes you just cant protect against the idiots out there. i would love cheaper insurance for wearing a helmet. i am smug about my helmet as it beats being on life support. my accident was in the us and the intial cost of hospital etc was in 10,000 dollars. luckily my company paid
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Perhaps snowboarders should pay more for insurance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
People get hit because they make themselves sitting ducks
|
Disturbing comment. Hit somebody and blame them for getting in your way eh? With the exception of those who stop just over the brow of a hill, the sitting duck statement can never apply. The onus is on other skiers to NOT hit you regardless of where you stop and how you ski.
Last weekend we were at Stubai Glacier and it was absolutely heaving. I like to ski fast - when it is safe to do so - but was scared at the speed that some idiots were belting past us on crowded runs. We are talking downhill racing speeds - sometimes within 2 feet of other skiers. Terrifying. Total morons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Boredsurfing wrote: |
| Perhaps snowboarders should pay more for insurance? |
Some polices do class snowboarding as higher risk that skiing, and so do charge more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| RobW wrote: |
| Boredsurfing wrote: |
| Perhaps snowboarders should pay more for insurance? |
Some polices do class snowboarding as higher risk that skiing, and so do charge more. |
Which is, of course, ludicrous but expertly trolled by Lord Surfing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind insurance where I get a discount for wearing a helmet. I always wear one, so perhaps they should be encouraging others to do the same with a bit of discount - after all we all know that helmets reduce the chances of injury don't we? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
