RapidRobert

Bike club people often cite the requirements of their insurance policies as the reason they require helmets on all riders for all their rides, despite the signing of a liability waiver. Can anybody prove it? Can, or will anybody post the pertinent section of such a policy?

sggoodri

The liability waiver doesn't really free the club from liability. Clubs still get sued, and can still lose. Requiring helmets and other safer behaviors helps protect the club. But more importantly, it helps protect the cyclists in case of falls, which we do see every so often on group rides.

Sorry, but I don't have a copy of our club's insurance policy to share. I do believe the explicit helmet requirement is in there.

prathmann

I would also be interested in any properly documented confirmation of such a claim since I've heard it so frequently. The LAB coverage for clubs is offered through American Specialty Insurance and they do *not* have any such requirement for normal club rides, nor do they even mention helmets on their suggested waiver form:
https://www.amerspec.com/lab/waiver.pdf

Most clubs in our area do have a requirement for helmet use on regular club rides, but I don't think any of those rules came about because of pressure from insurance companies. And at least one local club that doesn't require helmet use is covered by insurance.

American Specialty does ask whether helmets are required when requesting insurance coverage for special events (i.e. where the public is invited to participate and event fees are charged), but it isn't clear for what types of events the helmet requirement would be regarded as necessary to get insurance coverage.

sggoodri

I've looked through those online resources from LAB and American Specialty and cannot find any explicit requirements for helmets either.

The insurance forms for special events and accident reporting that request information about helmet use have probably led the clubs to believe their insurance rates would be less if they require helmets.

The other factor is just risk mitigation on the clubs' part.

randya

whatever happened to 'ride at your own risk'?

I've been on paid tours in nighttime Paris traffic where I was neither required to wear a helmet, use a light or sign a waiver.

squirtdad

The mind set that if I get hurt someone else is responsible....so let's sue them. (at least in USA), as i understand it liabillity in europe is different (at least as explained in terms of skiing of piste....he no problem, but you will pay for your rescue)

randya

If I had been hit on my bike in Paris I would've gotten some of that free public health care.

prathmann

I doubt that, especially since the rates are spelled out exactly on the application form. I've also called up American Spec. Ins. and asked them explicitly about having a club helmet requirement and the response was that there was no need for one.

Frankly I suspect that the 'insurance company rule' is frequently claimed because it avoids any further debate on whether a helmet requirement is a good idea for the club.

I-Like-To-Bike

Good for keeping the riff raff , i.e. cyclists who don't fit the club cyclist profile, away from rides, even rides allegedly open to the public.

njkayaker

That's silly. There are way too many undesirables that can easily afford or steal a $30 helmet.

Some people might be saying it because they assume it's the case.

geo8rge

I vaguely remember the 5 borough bike tour in NYC requiring helmets because the people who did not pay to take part, snuck in, raced, and hurt(killed) themselves typically did not have helmets. After the rule change those people were the ones wearing motorcycle helmets usually propped on top of their heads as they were too hot. I think now they hire professional security and have check points.

dynodonn 

My philosophy is not to get introduced to a doctor or have to retain a lawyer by that method at all cost. In all my years of riding a bike, I've done my utmost to avoid being hit by a motor vehicle, so far, everything is going to plan.

njkayaker

Do you believe everything you hear? I think some documentation is needed to support this fishy story.

People with helmets "snuck in" too. As far as I recall, very few people died and some of them where heart-attacks.

The reason they have checkpoints is to enforce payment. They finally realized that there were too many freeloaders they had to support (it can't be cheap to shut down the city for a good part of a day). There wasn't much of anything to encourage/force people to pay. That is, it's simple economics.

When I last did it (2005?), a couple of the marshals said the check points were to keep terrorists out!! As far as I recall, the only thing they were checking at the checkpoints was the presence of vests.

galyons

I think this thread is a bit trollish. Think about it! Insurance companies want premium$$$. Insurance companies do not want to pay claim$$$. Insurance companies want profit$$$. Insurance companies do not want to pay claim$$$.

You ride, gloriously proclaiming your manliness by riding with "no helmet"! You have a head injury accident on the ride and file a claim with the club. The club turns to their liability insurance company. The insurance company claims that you and the club were negligent in not taking normal, reasonable cautions to avoid or minimize the possible severity of an injury, i.e. not wearing a helmet. Wearing a helmet is a normal, reasonable precaution. (Wearing a helmet while cycling is easily proven as "generally accepted safe behavior").

The case then becomes an effort to determine your, and the club's percentage of culpability due to your negligent contribution to the accident. This takes many, many months before a claim, if any, is paid. Insurance companies increase profit$$$ by investing premiums and delaying the payment of claims. They are in no hurry. They pay their lawyers well for delaying the payment of claim$$$. Think "time value of money" and "rate of return"

You are still "manly", but bankrupt, not to mention possibly in a vegetative state. The rest of us may get to cover your bills amortized into the cost of our health care. Thanks!

Geary

prathmann

Nice theory, but it's not going to look very good in court since the insurance company (at least the one most commonly insuring clubs) is on record as not caring whether the club encourages or requires use of helmets.

In any event, the insurance company would be on the hook for paying if the club were to be found negligent. So it might well be in their financial best interest to have the clubs require helmet use so that they could use any violation of that policy by a participant to be used as a defense in a lawsuit.

BTW, back in the "No Helmet Trend" thread you made the claim that:
" "They shun us in their clubs. What's the problem?" Legal liability and liability insurance requirements for club rides trump one's desire to participate in expressions of cranial disdain."

I asked there whether you had any evidence that liability insurance requirements had anything to do with clubs requiring their members to use helmets on regular club rides and saw no response. Do you have any such evidence?
Note that there's a club that runs lots of rides in your neighborhood and carries liability insurance yet does not require helmet use on many of their rides.

wahoonc

So if I am wearing a helmet and get in a crash the insurance company cannot claim that I am partially liable for my injuries and will have to pay in full...RIGHT! FWIW the only crash I have ever been involved in on an organized ride resulted in stitches to my leg, helmet made no difference.

If the clubs REALLY want to protect themselves they need to see proof of medical and liability insurance from the participants. Helmet isn't going to make much difference in a lawsuit.

Aaron

randya

yeah, but the real question is whether a helmet has ever factored into your plan in a meaningful way

I survived riding in Paris w/o one, btw

galyons

I think that the "on record" is pretty weak. What evidence would be introduced to prove that the insurance company "is on record as not caring whether the club encourages or requires use of helmets."?

Makes no sense for insurance companies to detail "requirements". Does your auto insurance require you to wear your seat belt or not drive distracted?

Sorry, didn't see. I tend not to rubberneck train wrecks! I think the defend "requirement" a bit contentious. Common sense and prudence are a "requirement" in all behavior, even more so in our litigious society. Since I try to consistently exhibit such behavior, I have never felt the need to read the policies.

I used to drive competitive speed events. The club requirements were for helmets that, at a minimum, met recent Snell certification. "No helmet, no run" was rarely challenged and in the rare event of a challenge the answer was simple "No helmet, no run", that's the rule.

I simply fail to see why folks have an issue with club helmet rules, or the lack thereof. Don't want to wear a helmet on a club ride that requires the wearing a helmet? Don't, just ride elsewhere.

Cheers,
Geary

sggoodri

Oh, puh-lease! Our club delights in getting a diversity of cyclists turning out for rides. We get lots of families on tandems, parents with little kids in child seats, college students on MTBs, older cyclists on hybrids, and whatnot at our rally events. We mark and support multiple routes including short rides for the same day to encourage beginners. I often volunteer sweep so I can help out beginners and make sure they feel comfortable no matter how long it takes them to finish the ride. I've helped tired families draft me to the end of century rides. I've also changed a lot of flats for those not confident to do it themselves, teaching them in the process.

Our club also has a special sub-group called the "Slow Spokes" to encourage more casual, slower cyclists on its own rides and routes.

I-Like-To-Bike

But none are welcome unless they wear the club mandated foam, is that right?

tjwarren

Well, I'll agree that there are clubs that use the "no helmet" rule to keep the "riff-raff" away, since that's what I was told when I was asked not to come back. I was specifically told (because I asked) that they didn't care how safely you rode, how well you followed the law, how much respect you showed your fellow riders -- if you weren't wearing a helmet, they weren't interested in having you ride with them. The dozens of cyclists riding around our city helmetless are not wanted.

I was also specifically told (again, because I specifically asked) that the reason for this is that, although running a stop sign or cutting off a driver may be unsafe, it's not very visible; only that driver sees the bad behavior. Wearing a helmet provides the appearance of safety to ALL drivers.

Yes, read that again: I was specifically told, by the leader of our local group, that he prefers the appearance of safety over actually riding safely.

prathmann

Note that none of that is the subject of this thread. The question raised by the OP and myself is just whether anyone can document the claim that we've frequently heard that insurance companies require the clubs to institute mandatory helmet rules for their regular club rides. No one has stated that the clubs don't have the right to make and enforce such rules - the question is just on the role of the insurance companies.

In the earlier thread you, specifically, were one who made that claim. Yet now you state that it:
"Makes no sense for insurance companies to detail 'requirements'." So do you or don't you think that companies that insure bike clubs have a requirement for a mandatory helmet policy?

Digital_Cowboy

Here's a good question, considering that group rides take place on public roads. Can a club that requires helmets, actually stop a cyclist from following along on their rides?

tjwarren

Since the thread deals specifically with insurance, I'll add that their initial argument for me to wear a helmet was due to "liability". When I reminded them that their membership form required me to waive all liability, they changed their story to "riding safely". When I stated that I didn't think that illegally running stop signs was safe, they admitted they were more interested in the appearance of safety than in actual safety.

prathmann

Clearly not, since the club has no authority to restrict anyone's right to travel on the public thoroughfares.

But I doubt that it becomes an issue very often since few people would choose to ride in the midst of a group where they felt unwelcome.