I think we should ask the More or less programme to look at these sats!
MN HQ can you fix it for us? You must have influence with the Beeb :)
Back to the original question I have been talking risk assessment with my kids since quite early on. The are not physical risk takers by nature and I don't think that's due to cottonwooling.
Certainly as teens travel by public transport, night times, proposed visits to local festivals etc are accompanied by a " what the worst that could happen/how likely is it/what's more likely to go wrong, how can we make that safer" type of chat.
Trouble is, very unlikely things do still happen.Age 15, Risk of a serious unprovoked, stranger strangulation attempt on the lower floor of a bus at 6pm on a school night? Vanishingly small, yet DS was grabbed by the neck ( without provoking in anyway) and choked until a bystander intervened.
Fortunately DS realised he'd done all he could to ensure his personal safety and , apart from possibly being more aware of others body language ( we don't know if he was fidgety/agitated or seemed drunk as DS just didn't notice him at all) there wasn't anything to do and the risk of it happening again remained small.
DS again had an " adverse event" happen. He prevented some lads from another school bullying some girls at the the bus stop and got a fist in the face for his trouble.Predicatable- yep. Level of consequence fairly low. Would he do it again- yep even if he still got punched but " I'd dodge better" .
I have two teen/older girls. Bad things don't seem to happen to them like they do to DS. Proves that , despite the abduction stats it's still largely teen boys that get hurt on the street.... maybe! (or that being 6foot tall is more dangers out than being 5 foot!)