What is the most dangerous thing you have ever done?

[Robbie]

Not complaining LR, it was funny at the time (I almost grew a beard). No-one would think 'Little Roses' was a man (tho' u never know...).

[floo]

Not complaining LR, it was funny at the time (I almost grew a beard). No-one would think 'Little Roses' was a man (tho' u never know...).

If I am a man, I am the first one in history to get pregnant and produce three children.

[Robbie]

 

[floo]

A few years ago I was walking down the lane by our previous property and picked up a snake, which was in middle of the road. I didn't want it to get run over. It wasn't a bit grateful, it started to bite my shoe when I put it down. It was sometime later I realised it was an adder, WHOOPS! 

[Owlswing]

Many years ago, while still in Oz and age twenty something, taking two Mandrex (possibly sic) and a glass of Scotch and then trying to fly off a third flooor balcony.

[SteveH]

Three near-death experiences on bikes: firstly, I was cycling fast downhill, and managed to get my wheels stuck alongside the kerb. I was unable to steer, and would have fallen off under the wheels of a passing vehicle - it was a busy road - had a ramp in the kerb not saved me by allowing me to regain control. Secondly, I was overtaken, much too close, by a big artic whose driver can't have noticed me. I'd've been under his wheels had another ramp in the kerb not allowed me to get up on the pavement out of his way. I shook my fist at him, and called him a ****ing stupid ******. Thirdly, in March 2014 I was stationary in a filter lane in the middle of a busy A road near Northampton, waiting to turn right, when I was hit from behind by a motorcyclist. I broke my right heelbone and left collarbone in two places, and spent nine weeks in hospital. I'm still in the process of getting compensation.

[floo]

Three near-death experiences on bikes: firstly, I was cycling fast downhill, and managed to get my wheels stuck alongside the kerb. I was unable to steer, and would have fallen off under the wheels of a passing vehicle - it was a busy road - had a ramp in the kerb not saved me by allowing me to regain control. Secondly, I was overtaken, much too close, by a big artic whose driver can't have noticed me. I'd've been under his wheels had another ramp in the kerb not allowed me to get up on the pavement out of his way. I shook my fist at him, and called him a ****ing stupid ******. Thirdly, in March 2014 I was stationary in a filter lane in the middle of a busy A road near Northampton, waiting to turn right, when I was hit from behind by a motorcyclist. I broke my right heelbone and left collarbone in two places, and spent nine weeks in hospital. I'm still in the process of getting compensation.

And you still cycle, WOW!

[BeRational]

Dived in a cave, vis went bad and we were not sure if we were heading in or out of the cave.

[bluehillside Retd.]

A couple of years ago I was cycling along a quiet country road when a car that had been waiting at the stop lines on the road that joined from the right suddenly pulled across in front of me to enter the road that joined on the left. I had nowhere to go so threw the handlebars sideways so as to hit him side on rather than point on and landed in a heap on the road. He pulled over in the side road and came back to check on me. I was scratched and bruised but nothing serious, and he said he didn’t see me “because the road was wet” and asked for my address “just in case”. I was decent about it, even shook his hand before carrying on my way.

A couple of weeks later I had a letter from Chelmsford police station telling me that they didn’t intend to prosecute so I assumed that he’d reported the incident and the cops had decided not to go after him. No problem.

A couple of weeks after that though I had a letter from an insurance broker telling me that that I’d damaged their client’s car door and demanding immediate payment. It was only then I realised that the letter from the police meant they weren’t going to prosecute me!

As this is a family mb I’ll draw a veil over the letter I sent to the broker, but suffice it to say that it was “robust”. I heard nothing more.

[floo]

I have mentioned before the time I managed to nearly run myself over with a  motorised truck I was driving when I was eight. My father had several, they were used for conveying things around his horticultural business. In order to reverse it you had to get off and turn the steering column around. It was whilst I was doing that I got knocked over by it and the front wheel was trying to mount my chest when my mother came to the rescue. I got told off for being careless. It was a wonder I wasn't seriously hurt, not just bruised.

[SteveH]

And you still cycle, WOW!

And on none of those occasions was I wearing a helmet. In the first two, if I'd gone under a vehicle's wheels, a helmet wouldn't have saved me, and in the last, though I was quite seriously injured, I didn't have any head injury. In fact, I've been cycling for nigh-on 60 years, and put in quite a high annual mileage because it's my only form of personal transport, and in all that time I have never suffered a head injury while cycling on roads (I did go over tyhe handlebars and split my forehead open when I was 10 or 11, but that was cycling fast down a steep and bumpy path, when I hit an exposed tree-root - what would nowadays be called downhill mountain-biking). Road Or bike-path cycling is not dangerous, helmets have been shown statistically to make bugger-all difference, and the only benefit from helmet-wearing is to the manufacturers' profits. Bike helmets are a waste of money!

[floo]

And on none of those occasions was I wearing a helmet. In the first two, if I'd gone under a vehicle's wheels, a helmet wouldn't have saved me, and in the last, though I was quite seriously injured, I didn't have any head injury. In fact, I've been cycling for nigh-on 60 years, and put in quite a high annual mileage because it's my only form of personal transport, and in all that time I have never suffered a head injury while cycling on roads (I did go over tyhe handlebars and split my forehead open when I was 10 or 11, but that was cycling fast down a steep and bumpy path, when I hit an exposed tree-root - what would nowadays be called downhill mountain-biking). Road Or bike-path cycling is not dangerous, helmets have been shown statistically to make bugger-all difference, and the only benefit from helmet-wearing is to the manufacturers' profits. Bike helmets are a waste of money!

I disagree, I think helmets should be compulsory especially for under 18s. Lives have been saved by people wearing helmets. I also think it should be compulsory for cyclists to wear reflective jackets too.

[SteveH]

I disagree, I think helmets should be compulsory especially for under 18s. Lives have been saved by people wearing helmets. I also think it should be compulsory for cyclists to wear reflective jackets too.

Law should be evidence-based. There is, I repeat, no evidence that helmets make any difference - anecdotal evidence counts for nothing. I doubt if hi-viz jackets do, either.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Road Or bike-path cycling is not dangerous, helmets have been shown statistically to make bugger-all difference, and the only benefit from helmet-wearing is to the manufacturers' profits. Bike helmets are a waste of money!

"Shown statistically" where? This report of recent a very large study says otherwise:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds

Anecdotally, my cycling buddy came off a few years ago and cracked apart his cycling helmet like an egg from front to back. He was a bit woozy but basically fine. I cannot imagine that he wouldn't have had a fractured skull if he hadn't been wearing it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

I doubt if hi-viz jackets do, either.

Good grief. How would you propose to test his thesis by counting the number of people who weren't hit by a forklift truck when they were wearing them with those who were?

[floo]

Law should be evidence-based. There is, I repeat, no evidence that helmets make any difference - anecdotal evidence counts for nothing. I doubt if hi-viz jackets do, either.

A neighbour of ours, an guy in his 80s, used to ride his bike without a helmet and high viz  jacket. I was having my early morning walk a couple of years ago when he was nearly hit by a car, which swerved to avoid him at the last minute. I had a quiet word with his daughter, and he now wears the helmet and jacket, and is much easier to see on a dark morning.

[SteveH]

SteveH,

"Shown statistically" where? This report of recent a very large study says otherwise:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds

Anecdotally, my cycling buddy came off a few years ago and cracked apart his cycling helmet like an egg from front to back. He was a bit woozy but basically fine. I cannot imagine that he wouldn't have had a fractured skull if he hadn't been wearing it.

If he hadn't been wearing it, he might not have had the accident in the first place. The well-attested phenomenon of risk homeostasis - the tendency to take greater risks if you think you're safer - pretty much wipes out any benefit that might otherwise accrue. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/0.html  https://mayerhillman.com/1992/06/01/the-cycle-helmet-friend-or-foe/
That second link is by Meyer Hillman, who conducted the only trial of helmets in use, as opposed to laboratory tests, and concluded that they do not provide any significant safety benefit for road cycling (serious off-road mountain-biking is another matter).
I repeat, since anecdotal evidence is in play: I have been cycling for nearly 60 years, and put in a high annual mileage, and have NEVER suffered a head injury cycling on roads or cycle paths. CYCLING IS NOT DANGEROUS!

[ProfessorDavey]

If he hadn't been wearing it, he might not have had the accident in the first place. The well-attested phenomenon of risk homeostasis - the tendency to take greater risks if you think you're safer - pretty much wipes out any benefit that might otherwise accrue. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/0.html  https://mayerhillman.com/1992/06/01/the-cycle-helmet-friend-or-foe/
That second link is by Meyer Hillman, who conducted the only trial of helmets in use, as opposed to laboratory tests, and concluded that they do not provide any significant safety benefit for road cycling (serious off-road mountain-biking is another matter).
I repeat, since anecdotal evidence is in play: I have been cycling for nearly 60 years, and put in a high annual mileage, and have NEVER suffered a head injury cycling on roads or cycle paths. CYCLING IS NOT DANGEROUS!

I cycle about 50 miles a week and always wear a helmet, but I agree that the real world situation is complex.

I know there have been studies that have demonstrate more risky behaviour by drivers towards cyclists wearing helmets than those not - most specifically that drivers will overtake a helmet wearing cyclist much closer than one not wearing a helmet.

This may be an unintended consequence of safety equipment, that its presence leads to a false sense of security and more risky behaviour.

I worry particularly about the technology on lorries - 'beware, this vehicle is reversing' and more recently the introduction of 'beware, this vehicle is turning left' etc. Given that vehicles turning across the path of cyclists is a major cause of death and injury I worry that the presence of such technology leads the driver to consider that the responsibility is shifted to the cyclist if they are crushed by a left turning lorry (as there was a warning), rather than whether the responsibility must lie, in other words with the driver to ensure that it is safe to turn left.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

If he hadn't been wearing it, he might not have had the accident in the first place.

Actually he would (he was clipped from behind) but I’m not suggesting for a moment that one anecdote constitutes data.

The well-attested phenomenon of risk homeostasis - the tendency to take greater risks if you think you're safer - pretty much wipes out any benefit that might otherwise accrue. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/0.html  https://mayerhillman.com/1992/06/01/the-cycle-helmet-friend-or-foe/
That second link is by Meyer Hillman, who conducted the only trial of helmets in use, as opposed to laboratory tests, and concluded that they do not provide any significant safety benefit for road cycling (serious off-road mountain-biking is another matter).

The study reported in the Guardian includes more recent (and real world) data and tries to correct for biases. I’m aware of risk homeostasis too – simulator studies show drivers pass closer to cyclists with helmets on than without for example, and cyclists themselves tend to take more risks etc. The same thing happens with car safety too – when eg seatbelts or airbags became standard the death and injury rates didn’t drop nearly as much as people expected. Why? Because at some level drivers felt safer with this kit installed and so became less risk averse.

The point though is that, even if the safety increase isn’t as much as would be optimal, there was still some net improvement. And that it seems to me is something worth having.   

I repeat, since anecdotal evidence is in play: I have been cycling for nearly 60 years, and put in a high annual mileage, and have NEVER suffered a head injury cycling on roads or cycle paths. CYCLING IS NOT DANGEROUS!

And I bet I can find a centenarian who’s smoked like a chimney all her life and enjoys three stiff whiskies before bedtime. So? Should we take, say, the evidence from a pensioner who’s driven safely for sixty years without once wearing a seatbelt as evidence that they don’t work either?

Don’t misunderstand me here – I’m not an advocate for compulsory helmet wearing, in part because there does seem to be some evidence at least that it could act as a barrier to people taking up cycling, but I can see no good reason not to wear one myself and so I do. If I never fall off my bike again well and good, but if I do and it happens that the helmet prevents more serious injury than would otherwise occur then the minor hassle of putting on is a comparatively trivial cost.

Besides (and if I say so myself) I happen to think I look rather dashing in my lime green number…

[Rhiannon]

I think PeofD is right to be concerned about new technology on lorries. The rarly evidence from the recent accident involving an AI driven Uber car is indicating that the driver supervising the test became complacent and didn’t act to override the controls when a pedestrian stepped in front of the car.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Prof,

I cycle about 50 miles a week and always wear a helmet, but I agree that the real world situation is complex.

I know there have been studies that have demonstrate more risky behaviour by drivers towards cyclists wearing helmets than those not - most specifically that drivers will overtake a helmet wearing cyclist much closer than one not wearing a helmet.

This may be an unintended consequence of safety equipment, that its presence leads to a false sense of security and more risky behaviour.

I worry particularly about the technology on lorries - 'beware, this vehicle is reversing' and more recently the introduction of 'beware, this vehicle is turning left' etc. Given that vehicles turning across the path of cyclists is a major cause of death and injury I worry that the presence of such technology leads the driver to consider that the responsibility is shifted to the cyclist if they are crushed by a left turning lorry (as there was a warning), rather than whether the responsibility must lie, in other words with the driver to ensure that it is safe to turn left.

I was riding in central London a while back (something I rarely do) in a designated cycle lane about two feet across by the curb. A bus started to pass me, then turned sharp left at a junction. Not only did the side of the bus completely cover the cycle lane, it also went over the curb as it cut the corner. Had I not been near the back of the bus (and braked hard) I’m not sure that I’d have escaped being squished. So far as I could tell I did absolutely nothing wrong – and I (or my next of kin) would have been pretty unimpressed I think by a bus sticker saying “cyclist beware” or similar.

[ad_orientem]

As I mentioned on a number of occasions some of the crazy things I have done in my life, and still do, which could have ended in my demise.

I guess kicking around a live grenade I found in our attic, when I was 10, was the most dangerous thing I have done, although other things have come close.

I am sure other posters have tales to tell.

As an adult I've been in plenty of dodgy situations, mainly by bad luck or my own stupidity, mainly when off my head. When I was much younger I used to do bike racing, mainly time trials and hill climbs and that kind of stuff. Sometimes when I was out training I used to slipstream cars downhill doing 60-70 mph. Not the cleverest of things.

[floo]

My adult life has continued where my childhood left off as far as me getting myself into life threatening situations, most of them down to my own complete stupidity!

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi Prof,

I was riding in central London a while back (something I rarely do) in a designated cycle lane about two feet across by the curb. A bus started to pass me, then turned sharp left at a junction. Not only did the side of the bus completely cover the cycle lane, it also went over the curb as it cut the corner. Had I not been near the back of the bus (and braked hard) I’m not sure that I’d have escaped being squished. So far as I could tell I did absolutely nothing wrong – and I (or my next of kin) would have been pretty unimpressed I think by a bus sticker saying “cyclist beware” or similar.

Fairly common occurrence unfortunately. By far the safest place to be is ahead of the traffic - it is pretty well impossible to miss a cyclist directly in front of you!!

I worry about this proliferation of stickers plus voice technology either warning cyclists not to do something, which is perfectly legal - or even going beyond warning but effectively ordering cyclists not to do something (that is entirely legal). It seems to be moving the onus of responsibility from the driver of a lorry or bus weighing many tons onto the cyclist as to who bears the responsibility if the cyclist is killed to injured by a lorry turning left when it is not safe to do so, as there is a cyclist on their inside. If you are making a manoeuvre as a road user it is your responsibility to ensure you can do so safely, not anyone else, and when you are driving a potentially lethal object (a large vehicle) even more so.

[SteveH]

SteveH,

Actually he would (he was clipped from behind) but I’m not suggesting for a moment that one anecdote constitutes data.

The study reported in the Guardian includes more recent (and real world) data and tries to correct for biases. I’m aware of risk homeostasis too – simulator studies show drivers pass closer to cyclists with helmets on than without for example, and cyclists themselves tend to take more risks etc. The same thing happens with car safety too – when eg seatbelts or airbags became standard the death and injury rates didn’t drop nearly as much as people expected. Why? Because at some level drivers felt safer with this kit installed and so became less risk averse.

The point though is that, even if the safety increase isn’t as much as would be optimal, there was still some net improvement. And that it seems to me is something worth having. 

Possibly with air bags, seat belts, etc., but apparently not with bike helmets. It has been suggested, only half-jokingly, that the most effective safety aid that could be fitted to a car would be a ten-inch long steel spike, projecting from the middle of the steering wheel and pointing straight at the driver's heart.