Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Travel insurance firm refusing to cover skiers not wearing helmets for the first time

33 views
Skip to first unread message

John Benn

unread,
Nov 6, 2012, 7:43:54 AM11/6/12
to
Sorry, a little off-topic but travel insurers recognise the effectiveness of
safety helmets for skiing.


John Benn

unread,
Nov 6, 2012, 7:45:29 AM11/6/12
to
"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k7b0mb$sd$1...@dont-email.me...
> Sorry, a little off-topic but travel insurers recognise the effectiveness
> of safety helmets for skiing.

Link is here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2228558/Travel-insurance-firm-refusing-cover-skiers-wearing-helmets-time.html

A major travel insurance firm is refusing to cover skiers not wearing a
helmet on the slopes this winter.

Essential Travel claims to be the first British firm to adopt such a policy
as part of their safety campaign, launched after the death of Liam Neeson's
wife, actress Natasha Richardson who died after an apparent minor fall on
the slopes in 2009.

It is thought that other insurers may now follow suit, adopting similar
policies.

Dave - Cyclists VOR

unread,
Nov 6, 2012, 2:53:51 PM11/6/12
to
On 06/11/2012 12:43, John Benn wrote:
> Sorry, a little off-topic but travel insurers recognise the
> effectiveness of safety helmets for skiing.
>
>
I hope DavidR doesn't go skiing. He will be telling them they have a
'faulty policy', but not why.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

John Benn

unread,
Nov 7, 2012, 5:07:33 AM11/7/12
to

"Dave - Cyclists VOR" <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jVdms.182061$Sr2....@fx01.am4...
> On 06/11/2012 12:43, John Benn wrote:
>> Sorry, a little off-topic but travel insurers recognise the
>> effectiveness of safety helmets for skiing.
>>
>>
> I hope DavidR doesn't go skiing. He will be telling them they have a
> 'faulty policy', but not why.

What about risk compensation, rotational injuries? Don't the insurance
companies know about those things. They need to examine the impartial facts
at the bicycle helmet re-hash foundation website.

DavidR

unread,
Nov 7, 2012, 8:14:08 AM11/7/12
to
"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> What about risk compensation, rotational injuries? Don't the insurance
> companies know about those things. They need to examine the impartial
> facts at the bicycle helmet re-hash foundation website.

Even better, how about some numbers to show that helmeted skiers have a
lower claims history. They're an insurance company where only the bottom
line should matter. The rest is for passing the time arguing on newsgroups.



M Wicks

unread,
Nov 7, 2012, 8:46:19 AM11/7/12
to
On Nov 7, 1:14 pm, "DavidR" <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "John Benn" <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote
So do you think motorcycle helmets should be compulsory? Presumably
skiers reach speeds comparable to motorcycles at times. (As can
cyclists of course.)

Does your view on whether helmets are necessary or not perhaps come
down to whether you approve of the mode of transport in question? Is
it reasonable or responsible to potentially put people at risk of
serious head injuries by giving out dangerous advice that helmets are
unnecessary just so that you can conduct a moral crusade in favour of
cycling etc? Surely there are better ways to do it than that, if you
must do it at all.

Judith

unread,
Nov 7, 2012, 9:31:08 AM11/7/12
to
BHRF Charlatans.
When it was first established, its stated objective was to deliver the
message that helmets are not beneficial to cyclists - and that that
would be the message unless the evidence forced a dramatically
different conclusion.

And they have the cheek to try and appear impartial.

The fact that Porky Chapman is one of their editors is a clue to the type of
organisation they are.



John Benn

unread,
Nov 7, 2012, 10:06:44 AM11/7/12
to

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1urk985lsjk06oolq...@4ax.com...
And fish-fetish Keller.

JNugent

unread,
Nov 7, 2012, 12:36:35 PM11/7/12
to
Claim history is one thing.

It is the value of awards which is the crucial factor.

Peter Keller

unread,
Nov 7, 2012, 5:07:37 PM11/7/12
to
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:06:44 +0000, John Benn wrote:


>
> And fish-fetish Keller.

Thank you very much kind sir for your grreat accolade!
I am now working towards the even greater honour of smarmy lagerlout
git, bloody woofter sod, and pillock.



--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.

nik.morgan

unread,
Nov 7, 2012, 5:53:19 PM11/7/12
to
Peter Keller <muzh...@centrum.sk> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:06:44 +0000, John Benn wrote:
>
>
>>
>> And fish-fetish Keller.
>
> Thank you very much kind sir for your grreat accolade!
> I am now working towards the even greater honour of smarmy lagerlout
> git, bloody woofter sod, and pillock.
>
>


You don't need to work towards it, you have been there for some time.
--
ennemm

Bill

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 8:53:26 AM11/8/12
to
On 06/11/2012 12:43, John Benn wrote:
> Sorry, a little off-topic but travel insurers recognise the
> effectiveness of safety helmets for skiing.
>
>

>
Are you OK if not wearing a helmet the second time.

Peter Keller

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 4:53:28 PM11/8/12
to
But I need to go further! What about the greater honours of malevolent,
vengeful, cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome,
despicable, belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible,
criminal, and fascistic?

Judith

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 5:19:09 PM11/8/12
to
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 21:53:28 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller <muzh...@centrum.sk>
wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:53:19 -0600, nik.morgan wrote:
>
>> Peter Keller <muzh...@centrum.sk> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:06:44 +0000, John Benn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> And fish-fetish Keller.
>>>
>>> Thank you very much kind sir for your grreat accolade!
>>> I am now working towards the even greater honour of smarmy lagerlout
>>> git, bloody woofter sod, and pillock.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You don't need to work towards it, you have been there for some time.
>
>But I need to go further! What about the greater honours of malevolent,
>vengeful, cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome,
>despicable, belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible,
>criminal, and fascistic?


Thanks for the suggestions; but I think "stupid cunt" will suffice.

thirty-six

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 5:41:36 PM11/8/12
to
Wow, is it election year in your parts?

Peter Keller

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 5:21:14 AM11/12/12
to
On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 22:19:09 +0000, Judith wrote:

> stupid cunt

It does not suffice for me. I really also want the accolades of cockered
bum-bailey poofter, gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb, and
dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill.

Peter Keller

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 5:21:41 AM11/12/12
to
How did you guess?
0 new messages