Look at this

[Racing roadkill]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/co...e-pulls-insurance-cyclists-wont-wear-helmets/

 

[srw]

Already roundly condemned and being actively campaigned against here

 

[mjr]

Yes, a number of Nationwide members are working to get this evidence-free policy change reversed. It seems like another example of a helmet zealot somewhere in the decision-making process abusing their power to force their misguided personal beliefs on others.

 

[Cycleops]

They are entitled to make their own T & Cs and the policy is free, there are plenty of other policies on offer so not much to get excited about here.

 

[MontyVeda]

They are entitled to make their own T & Cs and the policy is free, there are plenty of other policies on offer so not much to get excited about here.

The account is £10 a month, so not free.

 

[mjr]

It is much more likely to have been an unthinking "stands to reason" decision.

I'm not sure because I feel they would have backed down long before now if that was the case. I think someone in Swindon is a helmet-pusher.

 

[Drago]

They also won't cover you if you're not wearing a condom, a nappy, and a full suit of armour.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

And next month the hi-viz clause gets added?

 

[mjr]

And next month the hi-viz clause gets added?

No, next month you'll have to carry a white flag whenever walking and an approved parachute on all international flights.

 

[Drago]

From next year they'll only cover bicycles with four wheels, seatbelt, roof and an engine.

 

[mjr]

Well this is a somewhat surprising reply. They seem to think they are a lighthouse:

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/AskNationwide/status/890616593155317760

 

[Drago]

Passed on your comments... To the cleaner to throw in the incinerator.

 

[Drago]

Have CUK or BC had much to say on this? Nationwide are trotting out the standard "its safer" line without offering any evidence to support the claim.

 

[ufkacbln]

Justices closed my account and transferred the money elsewhere making it clear that the decision was taken on the grounds that it was a policy change that had no evidence