Posted By Robert K Lewis With the debate about sensible risk assessment ongoing one can only sit and watch as experts justify an activity in which 4 people died in one day. I am talking about the national obsession for distance racing, and the sport of running in general. I am well aware of the problems we have with obesity and lack of fitness but is placing our bodies at additional risk really worth the benefit, especially when 1/2 hour brisk walking per day provides the benefits without the risks. In the last four years I know personally 3 people aged under 40 who died during one of their weekend training runs. I am beginning to wonder if there is a sporting industry here which is becoming blinkered by some very real risks. Yes I know the organising company sent out advice leaflets but is this really a substitute, any realistic risk assessment would recognise that substantial numbers would not even have read the information. How do others feel? Bob

Posted By Cr8r Robert After an RTA earlier this year, I attend physio and my physiotherapist has positively forbidden me from running. In order to increase my fitness, as I had a period of being pretty sedentary (although I am not overweight), I have used cycling. This is low impact, so is much better for joints and backs and most aches and strains will loosen off whilst cycling. You also get some respite (down hills). Lots of people cycle long distances for fun and in races and I have not heard of any problems. Obviously there are traffic problems in some areas, but as for health issues - there are none as far as I am aware. Even in the Tour de France, a three week annual race covering 100 + miles each day, there have been only two deaths in its whole history of over 100 years. One was thought to be drug related and the other was a downhill accident. If you want to get fit - get on your bike! And wear a helmet!!

Posted By Robert K Lewis Must admit to the low impact, particularly as i acquired a Triple Beckham in my right foot last year and it has not set in too good a shape. not that I could run anyway due to very long standing problems. I do not wish to be a Nanny but I do wonder if the message of running gets home. We can all see the paragliding risks etc but running is a natural activity isn't it! I think however it does highlight the contrary acceptance of some risks by society where such high risk of death is tolerated and even encouraged. I have yet to see a fun free fall parachute event, at least one where the training is totally self supervised and the organisers accept your own evidence. Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis But 4 died on the Great North run this weekend and I am just posing the thought that I also know of measurable numbers who have died in training. The problem is obviously that we do not know who is at risk without independent assessment. Just feeling fit is no guide as my friend who died at 28 found out to his cost. Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis It really shows the impossibility of the sensible risk assessment debate which the HSE are conducting. We will make decisions based on so many variable factors that nonsense to one is perfect sense to another. We put more effort in assessing risk against the single fibre scenario for asbestos than we would in checking our fitness to run. If people know and accept the risk of running there is no problem from my viewpoint. I just feel that there is a real debate about our fickleness to be had, and this is an experienced risk hardened audience. Bob

Posted By Jack I thought you walked on water, Robert

Posted By Cr8r Oh and regarding the racing bike seat induced infertility, I'm a girly so it doesn't affect me. I have heard mention of this before but all the cyclists I know have successfully fathered children, and loads of famous cyclists are fathers so if it does exist at all, it can't be all that common. Seriously, medical evidence has suggested for a long time that the fitter you are, the healthier you are and the longer you live. If you are fit and suffer a heart attack, it could be argued that you would have had the heart attack years earlier, had you not been fit. The trouble (or the benefit) with running is that virtually anyone can do it, you don't necessarily need to buy anything to do it in, so it is totally unregulated and uncontrolled. Lots of people will have turned up for this run not having properly prepared. The vast majority will suffer nothing worse than being totally exhausted and aching for a few days, but what can you say - they are adults who made the choice wisely or unwisely to take part - no one forced them. We still live (thankfully) in a free country. If you want to run until you drop - you can. If I want to pedal until the saddle sore makes my eyes water, I will. And no one can stop me.

Posted By Robert S Woods Re: Swimming I only swim a mere 3 miles per day not the 96 mile length of the canal. I once ended up doing Leeds to Warrington when I was doing backstroke; forgot to check where I was. Leptospiwhati never heard of it (I’m not keen on foreign food). I did once have a nasty incident when I bumped into the bloated body of a sheep, which popped on impact showering me with entrails. If my sandwiches get wet I place them on a radiator or similar warm place and they’re normally dry by lunchtime. Jacks right sometimes I do walk on water: in the winter when it’s frozen. It’s a fairly rare occasion that I cannot break through it by going hell for leather at it in front crawl mode.

Posted By Dave Wilson mesothelioma kills 1 in 100 men born in the 1940's and accounts for 3500 deaths annually, let me run is what I say!!!! You people out there who are in the allied building trade take note as this is going to rise to 10000 pa by 2020!!!! fact not fiction the biggest industrial killer ever know to man!!!

Posted By Rob T I must say that I think there are times where I actually lose the will to live and this is one of them. What on earth are we discussing running for. Running is good for you so long as you build up slowly to the distances you wish to run. Why are people so risk averse? The only way the human race has developed is by taking risks. Even high risks in the workplace are justified at times. The real risk is that we are interfered with in our daily lives to the extent that some people think they have the right to control people, justified on the basis of "you might harm yourself". Well whoopee. If there is a WORKPLACE risk then control it but do not presume to instruct people in their everyday lives. Prescott has started the ball rolling with the water temperature in homes rubbish. Do any of you want to be told what you can and can't do in every aspect of your lives - if so join the Taliban (and I have been in Afghanistan during their reign).

Posted By John Webster All of life's participants will eventually die. Every single one of us. And we will all die of something. It matters not what accident or ailment you manage to avoid, one of them will get you in the end. We are concerned with ensuring that this is not at the hands of an employer or as a consequence of a work activity. Beyond that, we are free to take whatever legal risks we choose, be it running, smoking, sitting on the couch eating pizza, swimming in the Leeds-Liverpool canal or drinking French wine. Some may lengthen, others may shorten their natural span but in the end we will all just be a statistic to add to one or another cause of death. Enjoy life, and don't fear the reaper!

Posted By Cr8r You cheerful lot! I might as well add (before anyone else does) - there's only two things certain in life: death and taxes. Someone quite seriously asked me the other day why I wanted upper storey windows to have restricted opening - what right do I have to stop someone committing suicide? The fact that you could also inadvertently plummet to your death did not seem to have occurred. Just when you think you've heard it all...

Posted By Jez Corfield Reading some of this the casual observer might be forgiven for thinking that some H&S people might want to ban running. I have got to agree with Rob T on this one, you could lose the will to live. It's tragic for those those concerned, but whose to say they wouldnt have died from something else if they didnt run, the benefits to health of this event, and those like it, far outweigh the negatives. Life without risk isnt worth living.... Jez Corfield

Posted By gham It's no wonder Jeremy Clarkson rips into H&S people. New warning on generic type running shoes must cover at least 30% of the packaging. "taking part in any sporting activity may seriously damage your health". "Keeping fit can cause heart damage" etc, etc. Seriously even playing golf could result in electrocution and lets not get in to the RSI caused by swinging the club. Darts should come with a risk of developing alcoholisim warning ???

Posted By Robert K Lewis Have to repeat that the title was provocative to make us ask some questions about how we can deal with what we instinctively believe are over the top assessments. Our responses has have centred around the benefits of running and this confirms for me the fact that benefit analysis is the prime method of assessing risk. The problem is though that we cannot have it all ways up and still have no risk. We treat even environmental risks in the same manner; after all, as the biologists have argued, we are an essentially selfish species and many argue that even philanthropic acts have a measure of self benefit. This then is the root problem we are going to have to address but I do not yet know a good way of arguing against an emotional case that is put across by many pressure groups who clearly tune into our underlying basic psychological needs. Bob

Posted By J Knight I agree with many of the posters here, just want to add my two-pennorth. I think the original purpose of the post is a good one, we do need to reflect on how we evaluate risk culturally and personally. I know that I'm at risk when I'm on my bike, or running over the Peak District moors (just started fell-running this year and it may be even better than cycling), but I am also more alive at these times than at almost any other. Since we're here, we have to live, and if we have to live, we may as well do it fully, and risk is part of life. Cycling carries an enhanced risk of death in an RTA, but the health benefits still mean that the average life expentancy of a cyclist is higher than that of a non-exerciser, even factoring in the fact that over-exercise is itself a health risk. I expect the same may be true of running. I have to drive for work; driving kills 1 in 200, and I hate it, but when does the man in the pub (or red-top journalist) ever suggest that driving be banned, restricted or even adequately controlled? Finally, I seem to remember one of the contributors on this site suggesting that us grey-suited safety oiks might be more likely than average to take up hazardous activities in our leisure time; this might be an interesting piece of research (then again, it may not ;-)). Keep on running, get on yer bike, jump off a cliff (bungee or paragliding), get yer scuba gear on (my next step into adventure having done two 'tourist' dives this summer) and live a little, we spend too much time at work as it is, John

Posted By J Knight Aye Rob, it's true. I was cycling down the Surprise a couple of weeks ago with two friends when we passed a small huddle of anguished looking motorcyclists across the road from a car with a dented front end. The mountain rescue helicopter was just leaving in the direction of the Northern General. What can you say? They scare the pants off me, and they only ever seem to learn when its too late, John