The Idler - Issue 41

Page 166

How to LIVE DANGEROUSLY Warwick Cairns on why danger is safer

¶ Health. Nothing wrong with that, is there? We like health. Safety likewise. And yet, put them together and what do you get? Health and Safety, that’s what. And what that seems to mean, these days, is “Don’t Take Risks Of Any Kind.” It means, don’t do this at all; don’t do that unless properly supervised; don’t do the other until a full risk-assessment has been carried out. It means, amongst other things, make sure your children wear safety-goggles to play conkers. Or better still, don’t let them play at all. ¶ But actually, if you really want to be safe, listen to what the Health and Safety people say, by all means—but then go and do the complete opposite. ¶ An example: imagine you have a new job, two miles away, down a busy road. There’s no pavement, so you can’t walk. But you could cycle, or drive. Cycling, you’re eleven times more likely to die in a crash, of head-injuries. So which do you think is safest: drive; cycle wearing a helmet; cycle without a helmet? ¶ Actually, you’re wrong. It’s precisely the opposite. ¶ Cycling is safest. Without a helmet. You’re more likely to die in a crash, of couse, but crashes kill far less people than heart-disease. And if you drive, and don’t do exercise to compensate, you’re far more likely to die of it. As for helmets, if you’re hit by a car, they won’t save you. That’s not what they’re designed for. But they do give you a false sense of security, which means you ride less cautuously. Which means more chance of getting in an accident in the first place. ¶ Another example: children. Do you let them go out to play, with psycho drivers everywhere, and paedophiles lurking on every corner, or keep them “safe” indoors? As it happens, outdoors is safer by far. It would take the average child, outdoors, 25,000years to be hit by a car. And it would take 186,000years to be abducted by a stranger.The chances of them having a serious accident

166

e

THE IDLER

e

SUMMER 2008