 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
idiots
this will be the same constituency of insurance companies who class snow tyres as a "modification" and charge higher permiums?
idiots
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."
(John Stuart Mill, On Liberty)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
If they could adjust their systems they could ask the 'helmet or not' question and charge appropriately but it wouldn't make a huge difference to the final price. How would they administer the system? How would family policies work? What about group bookings? The list of issues is long so they made a blanket endorsement. Even for 70,000 policies a year it wouldn't even be worth the IT development cost to make the changes required. This is almost certainly a PR thing coupled with a desire to be ahead of a growing trend.
The real truth is that it costs pennies per policy but loads of money and distress if it is your head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
The article says that the NHS reckons there is only one head injury per 11,000 skier outings, I would say that that is a sufficently low risk not to bother if you don't like them
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Next thing will be proving that you helmet is within shelf-life recommendations (3 years for Scott and Giro, I believe). Jolly good for manufacturers, distributors and retailers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just back from a ski trip where I was skied into for about the 2nd time in 25 yrs of skiing, I just caught a glimpse and heard the guy coming from my side and put a hard right turn in so he gently skied into the back of me rather than slamming into the side of me, we both fell, I got up unhurt and he jarred his shoulder a bit. If I had been wearing a helmet & goggles instead of just sunnies, I would probably not have been aware of him and would not have taken any evasive action resulting in a harder impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So how much discount are they offering helmet-wearers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insurer thinks up new way to avoid paying claims = dog bites man story
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| Just back from a ski trip where I was skied into for about the 2nd time in 25 yrs of skiing, I just caught a glimpse and heard the guy coming from my side and put a hard right turn in so he gently skied into the back of me rather than slamming into the side of me, we both fell, I got up unhurt and he jarred his shoulder a bit. If I had been wearing a helmet & goggles instead of just sunnies, I would probably not have been aware of him and would not have taken any evasive action resulting in a harder impact. |
Why on earth do you believe this?
Neither helmet nor goggles reduce you hearing or peripheral vision to any sugnificant extent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
Mr Bensusan, who insures up to 25,000 skiers a season, insisted, however, that the move would attract customers by proving he was serious about customer safety. |
How on earth can he run a successful insurance company with beliefs like that?
It will most certainly push customers away rather than attracting them.
I wear a helmet, but a condition like that would make me actively seek other insurers, and I am sure that would be true for many other helmet wearers.
While non helmet wearers would obviously be even more affected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assuming 70,000 skiers insured with them, each skiing 6 days per year with a 1/11,000 chance of a head injury they could be looking at a ballpark estimate of 40 head injury claims p.a. While I'm not in love with the maths here, they serve to make the point that what are low and acceptable risks for us are a pain for insurance companies once those (tiny) risks crystalise in a large enough population.
I'd assume some of those claims are pretty expensive and there's a business logic to trying to get the numbers down. It isn't a logic I agree with (I don't wear a helmet when touring) but I remain free not to enter into a private arrangement with them on mutually agreed terms. Which is why I think Lizzard's invocation of Mill is wide of the mark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
^^^
Rats. 70,000 applies to Thomas Cook, Essential insure only 25,000. Substance of the point remains, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
The list can continue.
No insurance for the back unless wearing a back protector.
No insurance to the arms and legs unless wearing armours.
No insurance to the car for the European skiing holiday unless fitted with winter tyres.
............
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
saikee, Im worried I dont ski with codpiece of a sufficently substantial design.  does that mean i may not get insurance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| saikee wrote: |
The list can continue.
............ |
No insurance off piste without an instructor/guide
No insurance if your are being taught by your Dad/friend/bloke you met in the bar.
No insurance in the 'fun park' as you are increasing your probability of having an accident.
The answer is easy, just change insurance companies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
under a new name, what you're quoting is sheer idiocy, pure and simple, since snow tyres significantly reduce risk of accidents and changing tyres can't be regarded a "modification" any more than changing the bulbs of the headlamps can. Requiring a helmet may be evil and unjustified, but it's not idocy from the insurer's point of view.
I'm trying to stretch my imagination to an acceptable policy, but I can't. First, an insurance should cover all eventualities. Perhaps a discount for helmet users? No! What if you've forgotten your helmet or stopped and removed your helmet to scratch your head just as some idiot runs into you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| SkiingDad wrote: |
| Perhaps a discount for helmet users? No! What if you've forgotten your helmet or stopped and removed your helmet to scratch your head just as some idiot runs into you? |
Not that I'm advocating it, but it's not difficult for insurance companies to incentivise helmet-wearing without completely removing cover for people who choose not to. Helmet wearers might get a reduced Excess Payable, for example, if you make an injury claim.
Is there any actuarial data which shows insurance payouts for injuries are lower for helmet wearers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
How does this arise?
"Has the car been modified?" - "Yes, I've put special tyres on it." - "Oh, we'll have to charge you more."
"Has the car been modified?" - "No." - "OK, fine."
You don't make a point of telling your insurance company what tyres you have chosen normally, do you? Well, I don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article makes it sound as if this Bensusan is on a mission. Quote:-
He also hoped to get the policy adopted by his parent company, the Thomas Cook Group, and thereby push all other insurers into following suit. If successful, it would be the biggest step yet towards helmets becoming effectively compulsory for skiers and snowboarders.
I actually wear a helmet, but I don't think anybody should be compelled to. It would only be proper for an insurance company to take a view on this if they could demonstrate a commercial interest. i.e. do they have measurably higher claims from people who do not wear helmets? If so, I suppose they have the commercial freedom to a) restrict compensation, b) refuse the business, or c) charge higher premiums. And their customers have the commercial freedom to go elsewhere. An attempt to impose a particular attitude on the industry as a whole is an interference with freedom. Leave Boris alone, OK?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No holiday insurance requirement in Scotland. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
under a new name, I wasn't doubting your word. Hope you didn't get that impression. Just agreeing with your sentiment that higher premiums for safer cars is idiocy - sheer idiocy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
moffatross, when you say
| Quote: |
No holiday insurance requirement in Scotland
|
you're only looking at it from a medical point of view. If you book and pay for more than two nights accommodation and have to cancel it helps to have cancellation cover. If you're skis are nicked they'd be covered provided you had more than two nights booked accommodation. What if you get injured and can't drive back home/missed your flight? Insurance would cover your repatriation costs. What if you smack into someone and they sue you for damages? Your travel insurance will have liability insurance. So, I'd say there are strong arguments for having it and, for most people, it'll involve no extra cost anyway if they have an annual policy. Otherwise UK-only single trip policies are dirt cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| RobW wrote: |
| So how much discount are they offering helmet-wearers? |
As a recent joiner to the helmet wearing club, this is what I'd like to see. I understand some people don't want to wear a helmet, and I understand insurance companies want to compel as many people as possible to wear helmets to minimise accidents and therefore their liability. So to suit both worlds, give me a discount! And my fellow club members too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
SkiingDad, no worries, no impression taken!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Steve84 wrote: |
| I understand insurance companies want to compel as many people as possible to wear helmets to minimise accidents and therefore their liability. |
Helmets don't minimise accidents. Good mountaincraft and technique do. Why aren't they talking about that? People get hit because they make themselves sitting ducks. People ski into trees because they've lost control. It's nearly 100% avoidable. The airline world calls it human error.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Steve84 wrote: |
| I understand insurance companies want to compel as many people as possible to wear helmets to minimise accidents and therefore their liability. |
Helmets don't minimise accidents. Good mountaincraft and technique do. Why aren't they talking about that? People get hit because they make themselves sitting ducks. People ski into trees because they've lost control. It's nearly 100% avoidable. The airline world calls it human error. |
Fair point, but you know what I mean. Minimising the extent of injures in accidents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Bode Swiller, I agree with you in general, but avoiding all accidents implies that none of us ever push ourselves, try that jump etc. We learn by mistakes. A man who never made a mistake never made anything as my mum keeps telling me
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Steve84 wrote: |
| Fair point, but you know what I mean. Minimising the extent of injures in accidents. |
So, why not make everyone wear knee braces to minimise various knee injuries - they are many many times more common than a head injury. If it really is about reducing claims payouts then an accountant would start with knees, lower legs, collar bones, wrists, ribs, teeth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Boris, 98% of people I see wearing helmets are doing the opposite of pushing themselves. I reckon most ski defensively. Of course, if you are pushing the envelope then its protection all round but for the vast majority a little lesson in where to stop, when to go, choice of line and a sound technique will negate the need for a helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
why not make everyone wear knee braces to minimise various knee injuries -
|
I don't think knee braces minimise knee injuries, do they? Any decent statistics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
pam w, I wasn't trying to be too scientific. I would think medial collateral ligament damage would be minimised perhaps. Dunno. Hey let's make SkiMojo mandatory - less fatigue = less injuries... (possibly). Maybe they should look at which day of the week offers the most injuries and ban that. If you're injured on a friday afternoon you're not covered. Fact is, head injuries are rare when compared to most other types of injury so, from the point of view of an insurance actuary looking to mitigate losses, I would think the others are the ones to attack.
Boris, great example. The chairlift bar needs a pad, not Mrs Boris' bonce. Agree about biking though, I wear a lid for that. But your dealing with a totally different beast. Hit the road and you don't slide too much eh? Hit the kerb with head and you're toast with or without helmet. Speed totally different, no cars on the piste with drivers reorganising their lipstick, no puny wheels hitting gnarly potholes. You average recreational skier goes along at jogging pace, whereas your average recreational cyclist is somewhere around double that and with significantly less room to avoid collisions. How many cyclists cop it each year v. skiers v. number of participants/minute/mile v. price of chicken tikka massala?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
alex_heney,
| Quote: |
Why on earth do you believe this?
Neither helmet nor goggles reduce you hearing or peripheral vision to any sugnificant extent.
|
This is not necessarily true. There’s been at least one study, Ski helmets could attenuate the sounds of danger
They found:
| Quote: |
| Significant sound attenuation characteristics of the helmet were determined for frequencies 2, 4, and 8 kHz (P < 0.001). Second part-High sound pressure levels were found for all the danger sounds measured on the slope, especially at frequencies that were most affected by helmet sound attenuation (2-8 kHz) in previously conducted laboratory tests. |
Though I'm not aware of any studies that suggest that goggles reduce hearing, there has been one that showed that ski goggles increased reaction time, they inferred from this a restriction in vision. Ruedl G, Herzog S, Schöpf S, Anewanter P, Geiger A, Kopp M. Do ski helmets affect reaction time to peripheral stimuli? Wilderness Environ Med [forthcoming.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| ...from the point of view of an insurance actuary looking to mitigate losses, I would think the others are the ones to attack. |
It's not the magnitude of losses that's important, it's the predictability.
The minor, frequent, low cost injuries are pretty predictable and can therefore be accurately priced. Higher than average claims in one week will be offset by lower than average in another week, simply on the "law of averages".
Serious head injuries are presumably potentially very costly on a "per case" basis, and a bit of adverse randomness in terms of the incidence of such claims can introduce high volatility into overall expected claim amounts, which direct insurers seek to avoid. Given that Lloyds insures oil rig explosions, one would think that there is capacity in the overall insurance market to underwrite these more volatile claims, though.
I suspect this is a marketing ploy, aimed at getting smug helmet wearers to overpay for travel insurance, thinking - falsely, given the natur eof insurance companies - that they're getting a good deal as their premiums aren't paying for the injuries of the barehead brigade.
In the interests of full disclosure, I wear a helmet. Initially, it was simply to stop my kids whinging that they had to wear one when the adults didn't, but I really like it now, as it keeps my head much warmer than my hat and is much more convenient for storing goggles on. Plus, of course, now the kids are into pulling the chairlift bar down, it prevents me getting concussion before the first run of the day!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Serious head injuries are presumably potentially very costly on a "per case" basis
|
a serious head injury would end up in a state hospital in Europe and therefore costs covered by EHIC (even if the patient doesn't have one, but is entitled to one, I understand the costs can ultimately be reclaimed). On that basis it would cost same as a hurty knee - in fact possibly less because the hurty knee may well be dealt with in the private clinic. Big difference will be with repatriation costs and that would depend on the severity. Obviously all bets are off for the USA.
Of course, your calculation is also suggesting that the serious head injury will be less serious if the patient had been wearing a helmet but that isn't necessarily the case.
But above all, when you say
| Quote: |
I suspect this is a marketing ploy...
|
, I suspect you are very right. Smoke & mirrors, fear, it's got the lot.
Interesting that your main reasons for wearing a helmet are to please the kids, as a goggle storage facility and for warmth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
a serious head injury would end up in a state hospital in Europe
|
Is it not the years of dribbling, urine soaked years of sitting in your own poo that costs the big money?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| ...a serious head injury would end up in a state hospital in Europe and therefore costs covered by EHIC (even if the patient doesn't have one, but is entitled to one, I understand the costs can ultimately be reclaimed). On that basis it would cost same as a hurty knee... |
I was thinking of the cases requiring ongoing full-time care, once patched up in hospital, like the really big RTA claims, which could potentially run into a few £million once the lawyers have done their stuff.
I don't know how many such cases there are (mercifully few, I would guess) and, as you highlight, whether a helmet actually reduces the risk of such injuries.
On a lighter note, wearing a also helmet allows for much more aggressive gondola entry techniques as you are protected against being whacked on the head by a stray pole or skis. Could be a good tactic for those battling the Parisien hoardes! As Kennedy might say, "And so, my fellow skiers, ask not what the helmet can do for you; ask what you can do with your helmet".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
