So You Can Go Swimming!

[JennyMorgan]

6 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Yes. Let’s just apply the same standards to all fun pursuits

The  likelihood  of an angler being injured in the same way as a swimmer is almost certainly less likely. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, donnygeoff said:

to be VERY blunt, I don't care what you think.....

If you want to put your own slant on my posting, please feel free to do so....

BUT, please let me know by quoting what I said in my post, where I said it was OK....

 

That's an easy answer the fact that you said you weren't bothered and I guess that has a lot to the attitude in which you worded your reply ie you don't care what anyone else thinks !

 

1 hour ago, donnygeoff said:

to be VERY blunt, I don't care what you think.....

If you want to put your own slant on my posting, please feel free to do so....

BUT, please let me know by quoting what I said in my post, where I said it was OK....

 

 

[donnygeoff]

3 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

The  likelihood  of an angler being injured in the same way as a swimmer is almost certainly less likely. 

You are quite right....

As a swimmer I have never had to "unhook my hand"

Sorry....

[batrabill]

10 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

That is not what a risk assement is about:

Risk a swimmer has a heart attack during the event

Possible consequences; death or physical disabilty

What can be done to reduce those consequences?:

Quickly identify that swimmer is in difficulty, make provision to extract swimmer from water, have first aid assistance on hand to asses condition, get swimmer to hospital within 1 hour.

What steps need to be taken:

Need race observer/rescuer and first aid advisor every 100m of race distance. River banks need to be suitable for extracting possible unconscious swimmer from the water. Ambulance must be able to travel to within 100m of any part of the river bank.

Then there would a section on who is responsible for each of  the above steps.      

Philosophical, I agree, I think from the get-go there has been an assumption that no one else but the very knowledgeable folk here at NBN had even thought about the dangers.

But.

The organisers will be personally liable if something happens which they should have reasonably prevented.

And they will be liable to go to prison if they have not made sensible provisions, and a judge rules that they are liable.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, batrabill said:

This debate had bean skewed by a lot of ‘what if’ ideas that no event could survive. 

What if people have a heart attack during the marathon? Cancel. 

What if someone gets hit by a golf ball? Cancel

What if someone drowns during our fun swim  Cancel

 

Have you no concept at all on how a risk assessment is created ? Its all what if's  that's the whole point of it ! 

[Smoggy]

28 minutes ago, donnygeoff said:

I for one, being an idiot hirer (sorry Bill) will not want to read in the EDP about a mishap....

I would rather read about it in the edp that anywhere else as it will be sooo much more exciting in the edp than it will in real life, it will be like most peoples facebook profile.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Philosophical, I agree, I think from the get-go there has been an assumption that no one else but the very knowledgeable folk here at NBN had even thought about the dangers.

But.

The organisers will be personally liable if something happens which they should have reasonably prevented.

And they will be liable to go to prison if they have not made sensible provisions, and a judge rules that they are liable.

 

 

 

 

 

I think there is a level of disbelief considering all the risks identified that the event is going ahead as originally planned.

Well certainly on my part there is.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Philosophical, I agree, I think from the get-go there has been an assumption that no one else but the very knowledgeable folk here at NBN had even thought about the dangers.

But.

The organisers will be personally liable if something happens which they should have reasonably prevented.

And they will be liable to go to prison if they have not made sensible provisions, and a judge rules that they are liable.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure that the family of a injured for life or worse  victim will take great comfort in the fact that the organisers are languishing in prison 

[ranworthbreeze]

12 hours ago, dnks34 said:

An interesting point of view of swimming in the Waveney. 

https://outdoorswimmer.com/blogs/diy-risk-assessment-for-open-water-swimming

 

DIY risk assessment for open water swimming

By Simon Griffiths • Publisher • 4th August 2014 @outdoor_swimmer

How much should you trust the advice of those who tell us not to swim in open water? Our hope is that regular readers of H2Open will be equipped to make their own risk assessments before swimming and know how to stay safe.

I spent last week with my family on a boat in the Norfolk Broads. It's a part of the UK I've never visited before but the promise of lots of open water with direct access from a boat sounded attractive. When we hired the cruiser I enquired about swimming and was told there were several swimming pools in the area but that nobody swims in the broads as it's too dangerous. The Broads Authority says: “The water looks inviting, but it’s a natural place and the water is always cold, whatever the weather. There are underwater plants and other hazards such as obstacles, fast currents and occasionally during very hot weather, blue-green algae may be present.” The authority also says: “The Broads is unsuitable for swimming, so don’t be tempted even on a hot day.”

Certainly there are plenty of places on the Broads where swimming is uninviting - the heavily trafficked and rather bleak 'New Cut' for example or the broads thick with sailing boats - but there are several places along the River Waveney and elsewhere where it was too hard to resist getting in for a dip.

The public mooring spaces all have 'no swimming' signs so rather than risk a confrontation or argument with anyone we instead moored up on remote stretches of the river and assessed our swimming options, and what the risks might be.

Firstly, was the water clean enough swim in? Without any testing kit we couldn't get a definitive answer to this question so we had to trust our judgement. The river carries quite a high silt load, so looks murky, but we weren't too worried by that. Our biggest concerns were contamination from agricultural run-off, waste water disposal from boats, sewage and blue-green algae. On the plus side, the river is boarded on both sides by reeds, which are natural filters, and the river looked alive and healthy. We saw lilies, fish, hundreds of birds and countless dragonflies and very little litter. In comparison to the tidal Thames, where I've often swum, this water seemed pristine.

Secondly, strong currents. The navigable section on the Waveney is tidal so the direction of flow depends on whether the tide is coming in or going out. However, even at peak flow, while noticeable, the current wasn't stronger than we could swim against (or even close to it). We didn't think strong currents were a reason not to swim.

Another potential hazard was other river traffic but we considered the danger here to be minimal. We chose stretches of river with good visibility in both directions and where there was a six knot speed limit. We'd typically only encounter a few boats per hour and the majority of these were speed-limited hire cruisers and so easy to see and avoid. We also saw one sculler but again made sure we had plenty of time to keep clear. Be aware though that some stretches of the Broads are designated as water skiing areas, and water skiing and swimming really don't mix well.

A bigger problem was getting into and out of the water as the boat we hired was not designed to support swimmers and at low tide the bank was too high to easily climb. This is one thing we didn’t see mentioned in any guidelines but possibly one of the biggest dangers. We solved the problem using a stand up paddle board that we tied up next to our boat. This served as a platform to slip into and climb out of the river and also as a step to climb back into the boat. Pre-planning how you will get out of the water should be automatic for any open water swim and is especially important where water levels may change while you are swimming. Incidentally, the SUP was great to explore the river and test out the current and temperature prior to swimming.

A trip to the beautiful and largely deserted beach at Horsey (and apparently Britain's largest seal colony) showed the danger of underwater obstacles. Swimming into one of the weathered groynes revealed by low tide would be a definite holiday spoiler. In the river there's always the possibility of something hidden below the surface but we considered the risk to be low because of the regular boat traffic. Nevertheless, we always checked before jumping.

Finally, was the water cold? We didn't measure the temperature numerically but tested it with our feet before swimming. Given the summer we've had in the UK we didn't expect it to be cold (and it wasn't) but it's always worth checking and giving your body and mind a chance to adjust before leaping in. The idea that “the water is always cold, whatever the weather” is plainly nonsense.
So was it safe? I think 'safe' should only be used in relative terms. No swim can be guaranteed 100% totally safe but with a bit of planning and care it's surely a lot lower risk than some people would have us believe. We very much enjoyed our swims and I'd happily recommend swimming in the Waveney, whatever the Broads Authority says, as long as you take appropriate precautions.

[JohnK]

We’d all agree there’s an inherent risk in this swim wouldn’t we?
But doesn’t almost everything have an inherent risk?
It’s about reducing or managing that risk to acceptable levels isn’t it?
Probably making sure participants and other stakeholders aware of the risks too?

Following on from Bill’s post ... If you applied the same criteria to boating on the Broads that seem to be applied to the swim here .... would you allow novice skippers? Would you allow alcohol? Would you allow unqualified skippers? Would you allow limited companies to make a profit from hiring boats out? Would you allow boats on tidal waters (non tidal would be safer wouldn’t it?). Would you allow powered and non powered to share the same water? Would you insist on redundant engines in case one fails? How about people boating without road access in case of a medical emergency? Who has approved the boating?

Someone on a swimming forum where it was proposed to introduce boats to “their” swimming area might say all of the above mightn’t they? Would they be right?

[smellyloo]

14 minutes ago, JohnK said:

We’d all agree there’s an inherent risk in this swim wouldn’t we?
But doesn’t almost everything have an inherent risk?
It’s about reducing or managing that risk to acceptable levels isn’t it?
Probably making sure participants and other stakeholders aware of the risks too?

Following on from Bill’s post ... If you applied the same criteria to boating on the Broads that seem to be applied to the swim here .... would you allow novice skippers? Would you allow alcohol? Would you allow unqualified skippers? Would you allow limited companies to make a profit from hiring boats out? Would you allow boats on tidal waters (non tidal would be safer wouldn’t it?). Would you allow powered and non powered to share the same water? Would you insist on redundant engines in case one fails? How about people boating without road access in case of a medical emergency? Who has approved the boating?

Someone on a swimming forum where it was proposed to introduce boats to “their” swimming area might say all of the above mightn’t they? Would they be right?

OK,  we will never know but since unsubstantiated logic seems to be perfectly acceptable do you really think the same arguments would not have been presented were the swim to have been destined for norwich?

JM would never allow anything that suggests a restriction to navigation (sandford) to pass without complaint, and his mistrust of the BA is legendary.

I'm not at all sure this debate is purely about safety as once again the assumption here is that the organisers have discarded safety concerns in favour of profit.

[Guest]

I'm not at all sure this debate is purely about safety as once again the assumption here is that the organisers have discarded safety concerns in favour of profit.

Until it can be demonstrated that all reasonable safety measures will be in place during the event, particularly if there is a cost implication in their implementation, that could be considered to be a valid question.

[Broads01]

36 minutes ago, JohnK said:

We’d all agree there’s an inherent risk in this swim wouldn’t we?
But doesn’t almost everything have an inherent risk?
It’s about reducing or managing that risk to acceptable levels isn’t it?
Probably making sure participants and other stakeholders aware of the risks too?

Following on from Bill’s post ... If you applied the same criteria to boating on the Broads that seem to be applied to the swim here .... would you allow novice skippers? Would you allow alcohol? Would you allow unqualified skippers? Would you allow limited companies to make a profit from hiring boats out? Would you allow boats on tidal waters (non tidal would be safer wouldn’t it?). Would you allow powered and non powered to share the same water? Would you insist on redundant engines in case one fails? How about people boating without road access in case of a medical emergency? Who has approved the boating?

Someone on a swimming forum where it was proposed to introduce boats to “their” swimming area might say all of the above mightn’t they? Would they be right?

John, you appear to be making the case for the swim because other Broads activities are risky and this event is no worse. Are you saying this event is acceptable and the location is fine, purely because risks already exist for other things? If the answer is yes, I find that bizarre. 

[JohnK]

I'm not at all sure this debate is purely about safety as once again the assumption here is that the organisers have discarded safety concerns in favour of profit.
Until it can be demonstrated that all reasonable safety measures will be in place during the event, particularly if there is a cost implication in their implementation, that could be considered to be a valid question.

Absolutely ... but is it fair to expect the organisers to demonstrate it here? Or that because they haven’t demonstrated it here they haven’t demonstrated it?

[Vaughan]

41 minutes ago, JohnK said:

Following on from Bill’s post ... If you applied the same criteria to boating on the Broads that seem to be applied to the swim here .... would you allow novice skippers? Would you allow alcohol? Would you allow unqualified skippers? Would you allow limited companies to make a profit from hiring boats out? Would you allow boats on tidal waters (non tidal would be safer wouldn’t it?). Would you allow powered and non powered to share the same water? Would you insist on redundant engines in case one fails? How about people boating without road access in case of a medical emergency? Who has approved the boating?

My answer to that would be that ever since Blakes agency was founded in 1908, the safety aspects of holiday boating on the Broads have been constantly reviewed but have always been found to be well within acceptable limits.

Passage swimming however, is entirely new to this place, so it is out of its comfort zone and must therefore be assessed from scratch.

[JennyMorgan]

35 minutes ago, smellyloo said:

OK,  we will never know but since unsubstantiated logic seems to be perfectly acceptable do you really think the same arguments would not have been presented were the swim to have been destined for norwich?

JM would never allow anything that suggests a restriction to navigation (sandford) to pass without complaint, and his mistrust of the BA is legendary.

I'm not at all sure this debate is purely about safety as once again the assumption here is that the organisers have discarded safety concerns in favour of profit.

That is a near scandalous, vacuous suggestion and one I would wish to distance myself from. Who is assuming, certainly not me? At seventy quid per competitor there is surely adequate dosh to provide a flotilla of support vessels. I will stand up for Mel on this one, I am quite sure that she's not skimping on what she, very experienced in these matters, considers necessary. I would personally like to be assured that adequate training and qualification of boat handlers is in place though but that is another matter. Loo, you are assuming and I believe wrongly so. No, I'm not softening in my view that the Waveney is unsuited to this event!

My mistrust of the BA might be legendary, but it's not without substance so I'll take that comment as a compliment, thank you.

[JennyMorgan]

20 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

My answer to that would be that ever since Blakes agency was founded in 1908, the safety aspects of holiday boating on the Broads have been constantly reviewed but have always been found to be well within acceptable limits.

Passage swimming however, is entirely new to this place, so it is out of its comfort zone and must therefore be assessed from scratch.

Not only passage swimming itself but also passage swimming in conjunction with other activities. 

I well remember, a few years ago, sailing on the Yare during the Yare Navigation Race and also a fishing match. I had no option at one point but to shoot up to wind and close to the bank. In doing so I regretfully picked up an angler's tackle. I hadn't seen the angler and the angler had seen me coming. When we slipped the boat at the end of the season that tackle was still caught round the rudder stock. 

Boaters are protected by the hulls of their boats, what protection do swimmers have? 

This is an important point, passage swimming is a new activity for the Broads, it must surely be assessed as such. Good point, Vaughan.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, JohnK said:

 

Absolutely ... but is it fair to expect the organisers to demonstrate it here? Or that because they haven’t demonstrated it here they haven’t demonstrated it?

 

I agree, the organisers of the swimming event are not answerable to the NBN. my answer to this would be for them to issue a detailed safety statement on their website, since the issue is as important (maybe more so) to the participants as it is to boat users of the broads. 

On the current webpage the issue of safety is covered in just 2 bullet points: Event safety cover & Event medical cover, plus the comment that each swimmer will have a swimming float to aid visibility.

[smellyloo]

6 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

I agree, the organisers of the swimming event are not answerable to the NBN. my answer to this would be for them to issue a detailed safety statement on their website, since the issue is as important (maybe more so) to the participants as it is to boat users of the broads. 

On the current webpage the issue of safety is covered in just 2 bullet points: Event safety cover & Event medical cover, plus the comment that each swimmer will have a swimming float to aid visibility.

It is a shame Mel felt hounded out by aggressive contributions as if she had been treated with a bit more respect she may have been able to provide a much more detailed explanation of what has actually happened.

But we're would be the fun in that?

[Bound2Please]

2 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

On the current webpage the issue of safety is covered in just 2 bullet points: Event safety cover & Event medical cover, plus the comment that each swimmer will have a swimming float to aid visibility.

Having taken part in and coxed a rescue boat at different years for the 1970's/80's Southend on Sea Charity raft races, where no one was allowed to get on a raft without wearing a life jacket. The rescue boats all organised by the RNLI. I can confirm that even with 10 - 15 rescue boats 2 rafts going down near the pierhead, wernt the easiest to get locate, remove from the water.

[grendel]

5 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

This is an important point, passage swimming is a new activity for the Broads, it must surely be assessed as such. Good point, Vaughan.

as the other activities are pre-existing then the new activity has to be integrated into the existing activities, and the existing activities assessed for their impact on the new activity safety wise, rather than reassessing the existing activities, though some advice may need to be passed to the users of the existing activities to allow them to co-exist.

[JennyMorgan]

8 minutes ago, smellyloo said:

It is a shame Mel felt hounded out by aggressive contributions as if she had been treated with a bit more respect she may have been able to provide a much more detailed explanation of what has actually happened.

But we're would be the fun in that?

Another galling and unnecessary comment. Shame really, Loo, because in principle your first paragraph does have some substance.

[grendel]

5 minutes ago, smellyloo said:

It is a shame Mel felt hounded out by aggressive contributions as if she had been treated with a bit more respect she may have been able to provide a much more detailed explanation of what has actually happened.

But we're would be the fun in that?

Mel wasnt hounded out, she was advised by the supporters of the event to leave, otherwise we would all be addressing our concerns to her and getting answers.

I still think that the event would be a success at a location where a bigger safety margin could be allowed between swimmers and other river users, I think the biggest concerns here are the proximity of the boats and swimmers.

[Wussername]

3 minutes ago, grendel said:

 

I still think that the event would be a success at a location where a bigger safety margin could be allowed between swimmers and other river users, I think the biggest concerns here are the proximity of the boats and swimmers.

Got it in one.

The very crux of the matter.

Andrew

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, smellyloo said:

It is a shame Mel felt hounded out by aggressive contributions as if she had been treated with a bit more respect she may have been able to provide a much more detailed explanation of what has actually happened.

But we're would be the fun in that?

I certainly don't regard safety as fun.  

If I make a comment on safety and it is questioned by another member  as being invalid, irrelevant etc. and I do not respond with a refinement or approach the issue from a different angle , then it could be seen as though the my posting is indeed invalid, irrelevant etc. If the issue is not important I usually let it drop, but in this case I do feel strongly as not only are swim participants at risk, motor boat users are at risk and so is the reputation of the broads at risk.