Posts Tagged ‘insurance’

HATCAMS

Posted on: June 23rd, 2016 by Isobel Addison No Comments

HATCAMS – WHAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER

Our guest blogger Emma McClean BSc(Hons) RN, Bridge Case Management considers Hatcams.

Whilst I would not dispute that it is now a real need to have some form of video capture equipment when riding out on the road these days, I would like people to strongly consider where they mount such a camera, without just following fashion.

I have been in contact with two major riding hat manufactures to seek their advice on mounting cameras on riding hats, and have combined this with my own 20+ years of trauma nursing experience to provide some points for consideration.

Blunt trauma produces injury by transferring energy through acceleration forces (+ and -) to the victim (usually from motor vehicles or falls). The pattern and severity of injury are determined by the magnitude and orientation of the acceleration change to the victim’s anatomy. Mechanisms and patterns of injury: the key to anticipation in trauma management, Grande CM, Crit Care Clin, 1990 Jan;6(1):25-35. Review

Your riding hat is designed to dissipate the energy around the shell of the hat, thus reducing the energy transfer (and therefore potential for injury) to your skull and brain.

Fixing anything to your riding hat will alter how the energy is dissipated.

Using adhesives or screws to fix anything to your riding hat can inhibit the ability of the riding hat to dissipate the energy by altering the construction.

There is no current test within the safety standards to look at how mounting a camera on your hat could affect it in an impact.

The next point to consider is the alteration of ‘head shape’ caused by a hat mounted camera. Our heads are shaped so that in a fall with rotational movement our heads will roll. Consider how easy it is to roll a foot ball compared to a rugby ball end to end. An object which prevents the roll of the head will increase the amount of energy transferred to the body. This rotational energy increases the risk of a diffuse axonal brain injury, which at worse can result in brain death, and at best a wide range of neurological damage. It can also increase the risk of spinal cord damage from the same increased rotation.

Well done if you’ve made it this far through the post, but the facts should be considered. I have spent some time contemplating whether I should write this or not but I feel compelled too. After 20 years as a front line trauma nurse, and now working within the field of rehabilitation I feel I have a responsibility to ensure people are making choices for safety based on fact not fashion.

I wear a Contour Roam 2 when hacking out. I wear it at the top of my boot. It captures the information which may be required if anything bad was to happen. And I risk a minor leg fracture. I can live with that, but I don’t want a brain injury!

We buy riding hats to protect our heads when riding, why would you then risk altering how it is designed to work? Would you tamper with the seat belts in your car?

Questions received:

 

I use a hatcam on a band around my hat will this have the same effect?

There are 2 points to consider here. Firstly the weight of the camera may in itself pull the hat slightly in that direction, thus altering the fit. During a fall the velocity of movement can increase the weight, thus causing the hat to slip further, and not be sitting adequately over the areas that it was designed to. Secondly, if the strap is stable enough to keep the camera in place when trotting, cantering and jumping, it is more likely that it will stay in place during a fall. The hat strap that came with my camera had the wiggly grippy lines on it. This combined with the textured surface of my skull style hat meant the strap was not going to budge.

Is a chest mounted camera safe?

When we fall forwards our instinct is to put our arms out to break the fall. This reduces the energy transmitted to our face and chest, but can lead to broken arms, which generally mend ok. Our sternum and ribs are there to protect our heart and lungs and are well sprung to aid in doing this. Based on the above I would think your chances of serious injury from a chest mounted camera are relatively low. You may have to experiment with this type of placement to see if you capture the images you want on the camera.

Could I mount a camera on my arm?

I’m sure you could. If you are mounting a camera on your arm try and have it in the middle of your upper arm, or the middle of your forearm i.e. avoid the joints. If you were to fall fractures in the middle of your arm bones heal well. Again you might have to experiment with the quality of footage you get from an arm mounted camera, as there could be a lot of movement.

How do you secure your camera?

I was inspired by the placement when I found an old mobile phone holder in a drawer. If you don’t remember they were neoprene holders we strapped round our legs to hold our Nokias! I bought a kit of mounts for my camera, and I am using two straps (as 1 is not long enough) designed to fasten to handle bars or ski poles. I have joined them together with a bit of elastic. They then attach to a camera mount (again for handle bar use) which swivels and locks.

Insurance*

If you did make a claim for injury following an incident any alteration to personal protective equipment (or omission to use it) would render you partially liable for your injuries. This would affect any monies awarded.*

Thank you again, stay safe

 

Thank you to Emma McClean BSc(Hons) RN, Bridge Case Management for allowing us to reproduce this informative article.

20.06.2016

http://www.bridgecasemanagement.co.uk/uploads/1401795481_EmmaMcCleanCV.pdf

www.bridgecasemanagement.co.uk

*This is the view of Emma McClean and not Davey Law, nor should it be considered any substitute for legal advice.

 

Injured people being ‘hoodwinked’

Posted on: October 30th, 2015 by Isobel Addison No Comments

APIL says Injured people being hoodwinked by insurance company tactic

On 28th October 2015 Deborah Evans, Chief Executive Officer of APIL wrote a blog  about a new tactic being used by a number of well known insurance companies.

She suggests that insurers have been writing directly to the people that their clients have injured, instead of the lawyers that those people have instructed to represent them in their personal injury compensation claims.

It is understood that the letters ask the injured person to confirm that they have instructed that firm of solicitors  and indicate that some law firms will make this up!  A practice which if trust should be referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

APIL indicates that the letters appear to be standardised, ‘strongly worded and vaguely threatening‘ and that worry that the tone of the letter will ‘undoubtedly put off some genuine clients from proceeding’.

Despite there being no legal requirement to do so the letter appears to suggest that the injured person is formally required to telephone the wrong-doer’s insurer to confirm that they have instructed their solicitor and that a failure to call will prevent the claim from proceeding.

Once the insurer is speaking to the injured person they are using the opportunity to obtain information which could be damaging to their claim and which the injured person often does not realised that the are under no obligation to provide this information.

APIL say, ‘Worse still, we are now hearing reports that when clients contact some insurers, they are then encouraged to stop instructing the solicitor and deal with the insurer direct. … This leaves the client unrepresented, with no clear advice as to whether the settlement on the table is good, bad or indeed ugly’.

The letters attempt to intimidate people who may be particularly vulnerable to do what is demanded in the letter. It is a blatant tactic by insurers to deter people from making claims  or prevent people from seeking independent legal advice to save themselves

Such tactics  are likely to leave injured people at the mercy  of these large insurers and at risk of their claim being under settled.

‘Insurers had started to recognise that offering compensation to clients without them undergoing a medical created an environment of easy money which could perpetuate fraud. Lawyers and medics provide checks and balances. Are we going full circle back to the days where insurers try to tempt clients away from lawyers by showing them an open cheque book with no strings attached? Last time this proved short sighted – driving claims up, and ultimately premiums up’, says Deborah Evans.

People should be aware that they should never speak to an insurer directly once they have instructed a lawyer as they may compromise their claim.

If you have any concerns about being contact directly by an insurer speak to our experts on 01285 654875.