Inflatable helmet, really

!Jones wrote:
An
insurance underwriter could GAF less whether you wear a helmet or a
feather in your jockey strap if it doesn't cut into the bottom line of
the risk. Underwriters aren't into an academic discussion.

Phil W Lee wrote:
That is why insurance companies don't generally require helmets.
Of course, people who make uninformed or just plain ignorant decisions
to require them for events like to blame insurance companies, but they
are mostly lying about it to evade responsibility for their decisions.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
For an exactly parallel situation, we've had people complain from time
to time about being refused service at drive up windows, supposedly
based on insurance policies. And we've had people who successfully
fought those policies report that the insurers had no such anti-bike
policies.

Such policies may exist in some cases. But in other cases, they're
invented for use as smokescreens.


I was told that at a bank once. "Insurance" my ass. I laid
my bike flat, blocking the driveup lane, walked inside and
withdrew my full balance, closing the account. Now I bank
with a locally owned entity, several of whose officers are
cyclists, where I regularly ride right up to the teller gate
in the lobby.

Problem solved.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 07:57:49 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

... but you won't read the link I posted about LAB's insurance? The
one with no helmet requirement?

How about their suggested waiver form for an event - also with no
helmet requirement?
http://www.bikeleague.org/members/cl...ple_waiver.pdf

A completely closed mind certainly saves a lot of difficult thinking,
doesn't it?

- Frank Krygowski

Of course I won't read a link. If I had to read every link nitwits
post, I'd spend my days doing scant else, I say! I'm immune to that
old troll.

Here's my philosophy, Frank: if you value the integrity of your head
as much as *I* value the integrity of your head, then you may damn
well wear anything you please... wear Mickey Mouse ears for all I
care.

I am convinced that egg cartons work better than eggs in a paper bag.
Now, if you put an egg carton in the path of a tractor and drive over
it, then, I suggest, you will have proven something... whatever that
is. My guess is that all 12 eggs will be smashed into an omelet and
that you will find no statistically significant (p= 0.005) difference
between eggs in he carton and the eggs in the paper bag. I guess
you've proven that tractors make good omelets... I dunno.

My point here, Frank, is that, if a person is on a collision course
with some inelastic mass (i.e. concrete,) then that person would
probably prefer that some impact dissipating material be inserted
between their vital organs (i.e. their head) and the inelastic mass.

If you disagree that this is a good idea, then... groovy. (Guess how
much *I* value your head!) I don't place much value on your feet,
either... thus, you may jolly well bicycle barefoot if'n it pleases
you..

Now, do **** off. I discern that I'm talking to an idiot and I don't
usually do that.

Jones

On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 09:35:39 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Jay
Beattie wrote:

There are no policy documents at that site -- no coverage form,
endorsements, exclusions, etc. God only knows what the GL policy does
or does not cover and whether there is any exclusion or limitation on
coverage if the club does not get a waiver. An "FAQ" is not an
insurance policy.

Event policies often have provisions that there is no coverage if the
insured did not make a "good faith" effort to get liability waivers
from all participants. Some are even more Draconian.

The whole purpose of the liability waiver is to disclaim liability --
so the fact that a waiver does or does not mention helmets really
makes no difference. The USCF waiver does -- but it also states the
no-drug policy. The USCF's waiver form has a statement of rules aspect
to it. http://www.usacycling.org/forms/rider_release.pdf

-- Jay Beattie.

This usually boils down to exactly what is covered and under what
conditions. If the sponsor has to provide personal injury liability
for the contestants, then helmets are a non-negeotible fact of life.

I'm watching the fallout from that nasty California event where the
OHV lost control on the jump and killed a few spectators... I'll bet
you see some significant changes there and for good reason! It has
become obvious that the official competition sponsors didn't have
personal injury coverage. Right now, the plaintiffs are looking for
someone with deep pockets to sue. They're trying to sue the
Department of the Interior; however, I doubt it'll fly. If I were
Toyota, I'd be scared... *very* ****ing scared! because they were one
of the sponsors! I assure you, they're the next target because the
actual OHV club has no assets beyond membership dues.

As to Frank's club: they probably don't have many assets, either...
I'll bet that they don't own a clubhouse, so who cares? Sue their sox
off and that's all you'll get. If he wants Cannondale, Profile, or
QBP to put their name on it, he'll need a solid carrier of
liability... and these people will require helmets whether he likes it
or not. They also require an EMS unit on site, and lots of other
expensive stuff. Anyone who has ever organized an event well knows
that the liability insurance is, by far and away, the greatest cost.

Jones

"!Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 07:57:49 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

... but you won't read the link I posted about LAB's insurance? The
one with no helmet requirement?

How about their suggested waiver form for an event - also with no
helmet requirement?
http://www.bikeleague.org/members/cl...ple_waiver.pdf

A completely closed mind certainly saves a lot of difficult thinking,
doesn't it?

- Frank Krygowski

Of course I won't read a link. If I had to read every link nitwits
post, I'd spend my days doing scant else, I say! I'm immune to that
old troll.

Here's my philosophy, Frank: if you value the integrity of your head
as much as *I* value the integrity of your head, then you may damn
well wear anything you please... wear Mickey Mouse ears for all I
care.

I am convinced that egg cartons work better than eggs in a paper bag.
Now, if you put an egg carton in the path of a tractor and drive over
it, then, I suggest, you will have proven something... whatever that
is. My guess is that all 12 eggs will be smashed into an omelet and
that you will find no statistically significant (p= 0.005) difference
between eggs in he carton and the eggs in the paper bag. I guess
you've proven that tractors make good omelets... I dunno.

My point here, Frank, is that, if a person is on a collision course
with some inelastic mass (i.e. concrete,) then that person would
probably prefer that some impact dissipating material be inserted
between their vital organs (i.e. their head) and the inelastic mass.

If you disagree that this is a good idea, then... groovy. (Guess how
much *I* value your head!) I don't place much value on your feet,
either... thus, you may jolly well bicycle barefoot if'n it pleases
you..

Now, do **** off. I discern that I'm talking to an idiot and I don't
usually do that.

Too late! ROTFL

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:11:07 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Phil W Lee
wrote:

Oh, yeah... we also had to have liability insurance; our state law is
pretty strict about that sort of thing. But, here's the rub: the kids
had to wear helmets during filming or our carrier wouldn't touch it!
Our local chapter of "nuclear meltdown" (or whatever the name of that
group is) had an utter *fit*! It almost derailed the entire 200k
grant because it required community support.

Use a different insurer. Only a few are that clueless.

Well, most of them are that clueless, actually. Besides, if you work
for a corporate entity, then you'd best "love the one you're with"
because they have an exclusive contract. The college isn't going to
kick the contract because a few students don't like it... the same
outfit does our plush health insurance package and *that* is a
multi-million dollar deal.

Love it or leave it... and we ain't about to leave it.

Jones

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:38:21 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Phil W Lee
wrote:

OK, cite it then - I've never seen any that can't be as easily
debunked at the TR&T "study".

I'm quite sure that *I* never mentioned such a study.

If you float about Usenet, you'll see arguments that hot water freezes
more quickly than cold water. (I assume that you're familiar with
Newton's laws of cooling.) You'll see all sorts of "studies" cited.
I can cite a study that shows that the world is flat (P=0.05) ...
that water flows uphill ... that more people with guns means fewer
people will be shot... that the holocaust is an historical fraud. I
can easily "debunk" all of the studies showing harmful effects of
tobacco use... so what? If you want to smoke, then smoke.

If you introduce an elastic material into the point of an inelastic
collision, you dissipate the force... that's simple physics, dude!
That's mechanics 101.

Jones

On Sep 7, 12:10*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sep 7, 12:35*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Sep 7, 7:57*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

... but you won't read the link I posted about LAB's insurance? *The
one with no helmet requirement?

How about their suggested waiver form for an event - also with no
helmet requirement?http://www.bikeleague.org/members/cl...ple_waiver.pdf

There are no policy documents at that site -- no coverage form,
endorsements, exclusions, etc. *God only knows what the GL policy does
or does not cover and whether there is any exclusion or limitation on
coverage if the club does not get a waiver. *An "FAQ" is not an
insurance policy.

It's correct that those documents are not the actual insurance
policies. *However, whether helmets are required certainly qualifies
as a Frequently Asked Question. *It may be the _most_ Frequently Asked
Question. *I can't imagine such a requirement, if it existed, would
not be mentioned in their FAQ document and in their suggested waiver
form.

You mention USCF's helmet requirement. *Is that on their waiver form,
or not?

The USCF's waiver form mentions helmets and equipment and drugs. It
is in the last third of the form, IIRC.

A helmet provision in a liability policy does not really make sense.
Why would a liability insurance company care about avoiding/reducing
liability for head injuries as opposed to all risk of bodily injury?
That's why it makes sense to require waivers.

Maybe there are some insurers who consider helmet use as part of the
underwriting process and premium calculation and will refuse to write
a promoter or organization who does not require helmets at events --
or will jack up premium. I don't know, but I doubt a helmet
provision ever appeared as a coverage exclusion in an event policy.

As for FAQs and insurance, it is my experience that most people don't
even know what questions to ask when it comes to liability insurance.
I see sophisticated business buying the wrong type of coverage or
policies that are so riddled with exclusions that they are worthless.
Some brokers do not even understand the products they sell. On the
flip side, some of my insurance clients still use crappy ISO forms
that provide unintended coverage.-- Jay Beattie.

For an exactly parallel situation, we've had people complain from time
to time about being refused service at drive up windows, supposedly
based on insurance policies. *And we've had people who successfully
fought those policies report that the insurers had no such anti-bike
policies.

Well, people who maintain "drive up" facilities really don't want
pedestrians and cyclists getting in their primary customers' way.
Banks are private property and, since we live in a free country, are
able to run their business as they see fit. The same goes for the
"drive up" window at MacDonald's burger joint... if I don't like it,
then I can eat elsewhere. I doubt that they're "anti-bike" so much as
their process is designed for auto traffic. They're willing to
sacrifice your business to avoid slowing down the stream of
automobiles. Face it, dude... MacDonald's will do far more business
from cars than it will from bicycles, so you and I are expendable to
them.

For an exactly parallel situation, I don't care what you wear... wear
a Bozo suit if you want... cycle naked, sheeze! On *my* head, I
choose to wear a helmet; however, I do *not* demand that you do
likewise... further, I do not give a good **** whether you like my
choice or not.

Now... I'm done. How 'bout you?

Jones

On Sep 7, 1:41*pm, !Jones wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 09:35:39 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Jay





Beattie wrote:
There are no policy documents at that site -- no coverage form,
endorsements, exclusions, etc. *God only knows what the GL policy does
or does not cover and whether there is any exclusion or limitation on
coverage if the club does not get a waiver. *An "FAQ" is not an
insurance policy.

Event policies often have provisions that there is no coverage if the
insured did not make a "good faith" effort to get liability waivers
from all participants. *Some are even more Draconian.

The whole purpose of the liability waiver is to disclaim liability --
so the fact that a waiver does or does not mention helmets really
makes no difference. *The USCF waiver does -- but it also states the
no-drug policy. The USCF's waiver form has a statement of rules aspect
to it.http://www.usacycling.org/forms/rider_release.pdf

-- Jay Beattie.

This usually boils down to exactly what is covered and under what
conditions. *If the sponsor has to provide personal injury liability
for the contestants, then helmets are a non-negeotible fact of life.

I'm watching the fallout from that nasty California event where the
OHV lost control on the jump and killed a few spectators... I'll bet
you see some significant changes there and for good reason! *It has
become obvious that the official competition sponsors didn't have
personal injury coverage. *Right now, the plaintiffs are looking for
someone with deep pockets to sue. *They're trying to sue the
Department of the Interior; however, I doubt it'll fly. *If I were
Toyota, I'd be scared... *very* ****ing scared! because they were one
of the sponsors! *I assure you, they're the next target because the
actual OHV club has no assets beyond membership dues.

As to Frank's club: they probably don't have many assets, either...
I'll bet that they don't own a clubhouse, so who cares? *Sue their sox
off and that's all you'll get. *If he wants Cannondale, Profile, or
QBP to put their name on it, he'll need a solid carrier of
liability... and these people will require helmets whether he likes it
or not. *They also require an EMS unit on site, and lots of other
expensive stuff. *Anyone who has ever organized an event well knows
that the liability insurance is, by far and away, the greatest cost.

One thing to remember is that if you make a mistake, you are
personally liable -- regardless of whether you were acting on behalf
of your employer, church, non-profit, etc. Even if you are organized
as a corporation, LLC, etc., you are always responsible for your own
mistakes. So while a claimant probably cannot collect against a little
bike club, he or she can collect from the person who made the
mistake. So . . . don't make mistakes! -- Jay Beattie.

On 9/7/2010 5:24 PM, !Jones wrote:

[...]
Now... I'm done.[...]

Hey, finally a useful contribution from "!Jones"!

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.