UK insureres not interested!

[Ed]

As bushcrafter's should we really need to be insurance in case we burn down someones wood. There is enough info in all the books, from the TV and from here on how to do it safely if can't or you arent confident in your ability then don't do it. Therefore why should you require insurance.

It allays the fears of the landowner.... nothing more... Just because you've read the books and seen the TV shows doesn't mean the landowner knows that you yourself are competant. It puts their minds at ease that if something did go wrong then you are covered for it and they will not be out of pocket chasing you through the courts.


Ed

 

[jamesdevine]

Thanks Ed I think I missed my own point here.

If we are to have insurance for Bushcrafting which would be open to anyone in theory who wished to play in the woods what ever their level of experience.Are we asking for trouble or would be one more step towards regulation.

For instance I signed up and paid my insurance it was excepted by a landower and that weekend i burnt wood down damaged his property. They insurance wood cover it but as this happens the premium goes up and suddendly someone that has years of experience can't afford the cost and losses there access.

I am playing devils advocate here but then shouldn't some standard of training or experience go hand in hand with the insurance. I think having insurance at least 3rd party is a good idea. But is it enough just to say I can pay for it if I break it.

These are my thoughts nothing else.
James

 

[Wayne]

Hi Bothyman.

No offense taken. i don't think i explained myself too well. i totally agree that you have to take personal responsibility for our own actions. I once spent 4-5 days in Hospital after climbing with a guide from an enforced benightment. the crys from the masses were why haven't you sued. a life without some risk is a life without colour and texture. However an insurance policy that would cover my loss of earning if i was Stupid enough to wack myself in the leg would be nice.

it would also be nice to know i was covered if from no fault of my own somebody managed to hurt themselves whilst under my care. when teaching martial arts i have to constantly remind myself that most people have no idea of self preservation and no common sense. knowing that i am not too blame for any incidents that could occur would be of small comfort if i was to be faced with a law suit and the resultant costs and stress such a case would bring. if i can offset that risk with a generalised insurance policy that i could present to local estates to reduce some of their fears about allowing me to enter their land so much to better. the landowners have a right to expect that i have a base level of competence and commitment to proper stewardship of their livelihoods.

i was suprised my earlier post caused such criticism. If you don't want insurance then fine. i cannot see how myself and a few others seeking to offset a theoretical risk is going to set a precedent.

all land in the UK is owned by someone. i am just trying to give myself any aid to gaining access to it. i am simply a member of joe public with a passion for the outdoors i can't use past assiocation with big companies to help gain access.

I hope that clarifies my position on insurance.


oh and Womble thanks for the support

 

[Great Pebble]

There's no harm whatever in you,or anyone else, seeking personal insurance for whatever activity takes your fancy. Assuming of course you can find it.

There was however some suggestion that that having a recognised form of "bushcraft insurance" could bring about entitlements and/or recogniction as a "proper hobby". It was also mentioned that paticipants in other "proper hoobies" are compelled to have some form of 3rd party cover. A situation which I distinctly don't wish to see arising.

On the question of precedent, it is to an underwriters advantage to generate precedent, for as long as individuals involved in...lets say, an "extreme sport" (which is probably how they view what we call bushcraft) approach companies seeking specialist policies on an individual basis, the insurance companies, statistically, are probably on a loser. From their point of view, anyone looking for such cover must consider themselves at risk. They are therefor the last people that the company is likely to want to insure. Hence the difficulty in obtaining cover as stands. If significant numbers of applicants come forward, particularly as a group, though, the company may take the view that at least a proportion of these will be inactive within the sport and hence present a lesser risk, so policies may be offered at reasonable rates, so reasonable that it becomes almost silly not to have it, just in case. You may find that companies, other than insurance brokers offer discounts to policy holders, financed by quid pro quo agreements. There may be exclusive events for those holding policies. Landowners and other bodies/individuals may be encouraged through garnishing of their own insurance coverage to offer access only to those insured.

Insurance cover can quickly go from being desirable, to being advatageous, to near mandatory very, very quickly. In the most extreme case it becomes compulsory for certain pursuits. Round about the time it slips from 'advantageous' to 'near mandatory' the premiums can start to work their way up again. And once they start going up, they don't tend to come back down.

Far fetched? Ask a field sports enthusiast of cetain age.

 

[Wayne]

I do not wish to see a slippery slope towards a compulsary insurance scheme. The press has often cried for such a scheme for mountaineering to cover the cost of search and rescue etc. I have as a member of the BMC always strongly opposed this. You state that some landowners may offer access to those only with insurance. here in sussex i have difficulty finding anywhere to legimately practise bushcraft. i am generally opposed to clandestine bushcraft. This can lead to confrontations with countryside rangers landowners etc. i for one would not want some unknown person lighting fires in my garden.

i think we have a duty to promote bushcraft in a positive open manner. the new TV series will no doubt bring Bushcrafters further into the public domain. not all of this added interest will be from people who wish to adopt a best practise approach. lets face it any yob can light a petrol bomb starting a fire is not difficult. Walking softly through nature is. the discussion about the pros and cons of formalising bushcraft is well discussed on other threads.

I had tried to start a debate for those wishing insurance to consider what kind of policy people wanted. Then Jamie could propose the idea to his industry contacts.

 

[Great Pebble]

Well you certainly got a lively debate with a range of different views......

 

[jakunen]

Like Wayne, I don't condone 'black-ops' bushcrafting as it only takes one :***: wit to ruin it for all of us.

I'm in no way saying that such cover should be compulsory, it does show a mature, and considered approach.

Ok, some landowners will not allow any camping with or without insurance, some only will if you have cover, some couldn't care, but at least it shows that we are adopting a responsible and sensible attitude towards this resource.

The sort of cover I would like, and envisage, would primarily be liability cover in case of ACCIDENTAL damage, some sort of cover for persoanl kit (although many household insurance policies already cover this), and maybe some form of personal accident cover in case you break your leg and can't work.

Anyone got any other points that would be included in the ideal 'outdoors person' policy?

(If Mr Howard is reading this, yes I AM being PC! )

 

[Great Pebble]

None of us want insurance to be mandatory, I wasn't suggesting that anyone here did.

What I was pointing out is, that from the point of view of an insurance underwriter, if they are going to provide such policies at all, and frankly, it is a high risk scenario in terms of potential damage. It is in their interest to try and engineer a situation in which said insurance becomes, if not mandatory, at least highly desirable. It ensures that they can lift premiums from those with perhaps only a passing or occasional interest, who are unlikely to make claims. It covers their costs and makes the risk acceptable.

One would be inclined to "disengineer" such a possibility arising.

 

[jakunen]

Sorry if I gave the impression that you were saying 'it would have to be mandatory'. I didn't mean to imply that.


As for 'disengineering' the insurance, that is why I specifically said 'outdoors person' rather than bushcrafter, as that way it could cover bushcrafters, ramblers, hillwalkers, weekend campers, basically anyone that uses the countryside for recreational purposes.
It could even include such users as fishermen (sorry, had enough of being PC), who represent one of the biggest users of the countryside in this country (its one of the top 3(?) hobbies IIRC).
Being an ex-matchman I know that we can get loads of insurance to cover our rods etc, but I've never seen anything to cover what several of us are looking for, liability cover + add ons.
I personally feel that such a policy could be of benefit to potentially a few million people in Britain alone.

 

[Great Pebble]

I understand that nobody wants to instigate a system of mandatory 3rd party cover for outdoorsmen of whatever kidney.

All I'm trying (poorly) to get across is that from the point of view of an insurance underwriter, offering 3rd party protection only to those who want it makes no sense. As the only people who will pay for it through choice are those who feel they may need it. The last person an insurance company wants to sell a policy to is anyone who's actually likely to claim off it.

So you either will be refused cover, charged an exorbitant premium or offered a policy so restrictive that it is effectively worthless....All of those are fine by me.

The final possibility is that an underwriter may attempt, through any means available to make life very difficult for anyone involved in the activity in question to continue the pursuit without insurance.
This last is only likely if a significant number of people seek the same cover. I wouldn't be particularly happy to see that happening.

Since you bring it up, I'd also be interested in whether or not weekend campers, fishermen, ramblers, hill walkers and bushcrafters would be likely to agree that they all share the same level of risk, or present a similar risk to 3rd parties.

 

[Buckshot]

All I'm trying (poorly) to get across is that from the point of view of an insurance underwriter, offering 3rd party protection only to those who want it makes no sense. As the only people who will pay for it through choice are those who feel they may need it. The last person an insurance company wants to sell a policy to is anyone who's actually likely to claim off it.

So you either will be refused cover, charged an exorbitant premium or offered a policy so restrictive that it is effectively worthless....All of those are fine by me.

The final possibility is that an underwriter may attempt, through any means available to make life very difficult for anyone involved in the activity in question to continue the pursuit without insurance.
This last is only likely if a significant number of people seek the same cover. I wouldn't be particularly happy to see that happening.

Since you bring it up, I'd also be interested in whether or not weekend campers, fishermen, ramblers, hill walkers and bushcrafters would be likely to agree that they all share the same level of risk, or present a similar risk to 3rd parties.

I'm not sure I agree GP.
The other type of person that may like insurance is someone wanting to be responsible.
If the majority are interested in taking out a policy that in itself will bring the premium down. Not all will claim because of the shear numbers of insured.

Take shooting for example, all the shooting organisations provide insurance as standard in thier membership package, normally £5M 3rd party.
BASC has several hundred thousand memebrs alone not counting the other organisations. Alot of people are members of more than one organisation meaning if they want to claim they can only do it on one policy, not 2 or 3.

Because there are so many people who have cover the premium is very little. I have no idea what the organisations pay but yearly membership to these orgaisations is normally £40ish, and that covers all their other costs as well so the insurance part must be pence. Strength in numbers...
If someone wants to claim on their insurance, because the number of policies is so large it doesn't make a difference to the premiums as a whole.

Is insurance such a bad thing, surely it's just being responsible?

Cheers

Mark

 

[Great Pebble]

The situation with regard to shooting is exactly what I want to prevent happening to other areas of outdoor activity. That's my entire point.

 

[Buckshot]

The situation with regard to shooting is exactly what I want to prevent happening to other areas of outdoor activity. That's my entire point.

Why :?:
I understand what your saying, but not why

Cheers

Mark

 

[Great Pebble]

I'm starting to wonder myself

I suppose I just don't want to be in anyone's "gang" and don't want any "gangs" tramping about the place placing the blame for anything they don't like or can't be bothered to sort out on the "hooligans" who won't do things their way. IMHO that is very much the case with field sports today and one of the principle attractions of the "clubs" is the cheap insurance. I have had a similar experience with motor sport.

I have a feeling the point is kind of moot anyway, but you never know.

 

[jakunen]

Nick, no-one is saying, or even trying to imply, anything about 'gangs' and blaming anything on others- quiet the opposite!

What we are trying to show, as far as I'm concerned, is that we are considerate, mature and above all responsible people who care about what we do and the image that we present. Yes, in any group you wil get idiots, be they fishermen, politicans or what-have-you that marr the whole sport/industry/etc., by not considering their actions or causing trouble either deliberatly or just because they don't care, but we are trying to show that we are not like that and by trying to get liability cover we are attempting to show that we take our responsibilities seriously and are prepared to take responsibility for our actions. That's all.

 

[Great Pebble]

I know, but what you want and what you get aren't always the same thing.

Once the insurance industry gets its claws into any hobby/passtime, it suffers. And there are implications for everyone involved.

 

[Jamie]

I think that the long and short of this debate is that there are problems with both sides.

On the one hand, many landowners will not allow us on their land at the best of times, but the more forward thinking who do will inevitably want at some point to ensure that their land and livelihoods are protected from what should only ever be an accident (and these do happen to the best bushcrafters I am sure) - and when I say accident I dont mean to the individual holding the insurance.

This will ultimately mean that at some point a 'standardised' format for people wishing to go out and do what we do will be an inevitability- for good or bad - and perhaps there is a point to this in that we as a group try to create the format ourselves rather than rely on a suit in an office who's only ever experience of bushcraft was haviung picked up Mears' latest DVD at HMV to come up with a format that does not suit anybody at all.

 

[Adi007]

Question ...

The BASC (among other organizations) provide insurance ... but, anyone know anyone who has successfully claimed off it? See, my point being that third-party liability is one thing but it is worthless if you get buried under legal paperwork and you got bust because of legal fees. It seems to me that if you were to get outdoor insurance then legal protection would be vital.

Take this (unlikley) scenario ...

You are in a woods with permission and a fire happens. If you caused it and stuck your hand up and owned up to it, does it end there or will there be legal wranglings as to whether it was deliberate or not, carelessness etc? Also, what if there was a fire and you didn't cause it but were the only insured party?

Seems to me that a million quid would be good protection in the even of injuring or killing someone accidently (in the UK, I doubt it would be in the in the US) but in legal terms might not be much at all.

Just random thoughts ...

 

[Great Pebble]

Good summation Jaime.... And never the twain shall meet, I fear.

Adi, put a lot of the points I was trying to make a lot better.

No matter what level of cover you have for any given situation, the expected legal and compensation costs for that situation will exapand to meet and indeed, exceed it. I'd also be inclined to believe that were "bushcraft insurance" to be mooted, £1million would be inadequate. It's a less controlled activity than sport shooting, and the potential risks are greater.
Before I'm corrected, I know that the original suggestion was for general outdoor insurance rather than specific bushcraft insurance, but again, looking at it from the point of view of an underwriter, the two major differences between "bushcraft" and "camping" are blade work and fire, the two potentially most dangerous activities in our passtime. (I'm not even going to touch on trapping or expedient archery).

Makes you wonder how we've managed to practise the 'craft at all in the past.