So You Can Go Swimming!

[MauriceMynah]

Sorry Ricardo, I don't agree that lifting from another forum is wrong. I would happily do so with or without the original posters permission. Once on open forum, any post is public property in my opinion.

That aside I do have some questions. How many hours within this event would there be a significant number of swimmers in the water? If the navigation were to be closed to improve the safety aspect, how long would we envisage this closure to last? (and yes, I do realise that this answer would be a matter of opinion.) and finally whilst I would accept the risks from discarded and lost fishing tackle, would any angler really be fishing while all this was taking place?

[grendel]

while it is possible, we do have rules in the members area that this is not allowed, and if you are caught quoting anything from a post in the members area elsewhere, then it is a serious breach that could lead to being banned, from the open area of the forum, we would prefer if it was done with the OP's permission.

12 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

would any angler really be fishing while all this was taking place?

depends upon how stubborn and determined to exercise his right to fish the angler was, you could equally replace angler with boater in this instance as it is no different in principle.

[TheQ]

A round up,

It's not illegal to swim in the broads, just normally highly discouraged by BA,

Fishermen are required to remove rods and lines to allow navigation by boats (Regulation 29 IIRC), even so they still get very upset, and have been known (rarely) to fire magots etc.

There is no regulation requiring them to remove lines and rods for swimmers.

Whilst supporting the idea of the event, Most think they have chosen the wrong place at the wrong time for the event.

In general we think mixing a large group of swimmers in a small river with tourists and others on motorboats a bad Idea.

Some businesses may make more money, others may lose the overall effect we don't know.

Other  than that there is nothing we can do about it.

[MauriceMynah]

I take your point Grendel, By open forum I meant that which is open to all, but I accept I should have made that clear..

[JennyMorgan]

14 minutes ago, TheQ said:

A round up,

It's not illegal to swim in the broads, just normally highly discouraged by BA,

Fishermen are required to remove rods and lines to allow navigation by boats (Regulation 29 IIRC), even so they still get very upset, and have been known (rarely) to fire magots etc.

There is no regulation requiring them to remove lines and rods for swimmers.

Whilst supporting the idea of the event, Most think they have chosen the wrong place at the wrong time for the event.

In general we think mixing a large group of swimmers in a small river with tourists and others on motorboats a bad Idea.

Some businesses may make more money, others may lose the overall effect we don't know.

Other  than that there is nothing we can do about it.

Other than the final conclusion absolutely spot on. However, you can do something about it, you can express your support or your concerns to both the organisers and the Authority.  

[JennyMorgan]

52 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Sorry Ricardo, I don't agree that lifting from another forum is wrong. I would happily do so with or without the original posters permission. Once on open forum, any post is public property in my opinion.

That aside I do have some questions. How many hours within this event would there be a significant number of swimmers in the water? If the navigation were to be closed to improve the safety aspect, how long would we envisage this closure to last? (and yes, I do realise that this answer would be a matter of opinion.) and finally whilst I would accept the risks from discarded and lost fishing tackle, would any angler really be fishing while all this was taking place?

John, anglers fish on during sailing events so why not a swimming one. Some folk can only go fishing at the weekends, why should they forgo that. I don't really see a hazard with lost tackle but I do see one with the tackle in use by anglers. Would you wish to have one of these foul hooking your jacksie? 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=active&hl=en&biw=1600&bih=769&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=KIjEWqz5CI-0gQbXlZGIBw&q=fishing+jerkbaits&oq=fishing+jerkbaits&gs_l=psy-ab.12..0j0i24k1l5.38689.44335.0.50954.10.6.0.4.4.0.89.408.6.6.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.10.445...0i67k1j0i8i30k1.0.ohtHHX432r8#imgrc=C9SU96BOxLf62M:

[rightsaidfred]

35 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

That aside I do have some questions. How many hours within this event would there be a significant number of swimmers in the water? If the navigation were to be closed to improve the safety aspect, how long would we envisage this closure to last? (and yes, I do realise that this answer would be a matter of opinion.) and finally whilst I would accept the risks from discarded and lost fishing tackle, would any angler really be fishing while all this was taking place?

Firstly in my opinion this event is not sufficient reason to close the navigation under current powers, however if that was to happen thinking about it the navigation would have to be closed for almost a whole day, it would have to be closed from the upstream end some time before the start to allow any boats travelling downstream to clear the area plus who will be responsible for removing boats moored overnight along the length who then wish to move off during the morning,  then allowing for stragglers etc it would probably be mid afternoon before it would be reopened, as for anglers I daresay there will be some who would be unaware of the event prior to starting fishing and will in all probability be there before the swim starts, not everyone reads the local press etc. and many tend to fish the same location week in week out depending on where they live.

On another note apart from possible consequences for the organiser I don't consider financial implications other than possible costs to the BA and RNLI to be relevant it is all about safety not who will or will not make money out of the event.

Fred

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Paladin said:

As I read it, JennyMorgan’s letter was reproduced on NBF with his permission, as I hope he will now confirm.

If that's correct then why omit the authors name ? There is no where in that post that state's with permission or not or who wrote it .

[Smoggy]

37 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

If that's correct then why omit the authors name ? There is no where in that post that state's with permission or not or who wrote it .

"A letter has been sent to the BA pointing out the dangers and I reproduce it below with permission. "

Yeah yeah copied from 'another forum' but you get the jist, if I was to do the same I would leave the name off too, can you confirm permission or not please JM before this becomes an inter forum squabble.

I too am of the view when something is posted on open forum it becomes open knowledge and fair game as long as no one else's credit is taken.
 

[JennyMorgan]

37 minutes ago, Smoggy said:

"A letter has been sent to the BA pointing out the dangers and I reproduce it below with permission. "

Yeah yeah copied from 'another forum' but you get the jist, if I was to do the same I would leave the name off too, can you confirm permission or not please JM before this becomes an inter forum squabble.

I too am of the view when something is posted on open forum it becomes open knowledge and fair game as long as no one else's credit is taken.
 

Why has this suddenly become remotely relevant to the discussion? Why on earth would it become a forum squabble? What is even to say that my letter was lifted off this forum rather than from elsewhere? Not that it is anybody's business here but I have shared it with, for information, several good and long time friends and one relevant Facebook group. It has also been shared with the EDP, once again for information and whilst I sent it to the Authority's officer responsible for river safety I have also shared it with Dr Packman, once again for information. Unlike some I don't regard water safety as none of my business believing that it is something that should concern us all. So please, don't start looking for problems that don't exist. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that it should be the basis of a forum squabble nor, unless the BA fail to respond, a BA bashing exercise. 

[Vaughan]

I am certainly looking forward to their response.

[JennyMorgan]

We are going onto the makings of another topic but now any response from the BA is relevant. It strikes me as unfortunate that the Authority has become involved and a greater misfortune that they didn't simply repeat their oft given advice that they don't advocate swimming on the Broads and leave it at that. I'm no legal beagle but as far as I am aware there is no specific provision within the Broads Act for swimming anymore than there is for feeding ducks. I wonder how the Authority can do other than advise. Effectively by allowing itself to become involved the Authority now has to accept some responsibility yet in regard to swimming I do wonder what powers they actually have? Us  anglers are barred from hindering boats but no mention about boats hindering swimmers! There is a problem, clearly, but I don't see it as being initiated by the Authority, it's something that has been thrust upon them.

[grendel]

The problem as I see it is that if you agree that boats and swimmers mixing are a problem, how do you mitigate the risk. slowing down the boats might at first seem a sensible way forward, so I will hasten to say (hearing the shouting in the background getting louder) that slowing the boats only increases the risk, as they then have less directional control, slow them down enough and they may end up in reverse to avoid speeding due to the tide or current.

So we cannot slow the boats down, can we increase the separation between the boats and swimmers - well we know the answer is yes - use a wider river, or hold the event where no boats go.

As time goes by we just see the level of risk increasing - so there will now be a tour boat operating from Beccles that day. while the skipper is undoubtedly experienced how much further will this restrict the available river width, we know he cannot head upstream, so will be heading towards the racing swimmers. even if he does turn short of the swimmers, his trips will get shorter and shorter as the day progresses.

[TheQ]

Didn't the Broads Authority get prosecuted over deaths by drowning at Whitlingham?

Could BA have some resposibility if there is accident or injury at this event?

As since they have control of all the Broads, then they have a duty of care...

[dnks34]

I think MM’s 3 hour closure was on the optimistic side! 

[rightsaidfred]

41 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

I think MM’s 3 hour closure was on the optimistic side! 

As the estimate for the slowest is 5 hours I think that is a given.

Fred

[Simondo]

I get the discussion about safety and shared watercourse usage and very valid it is, but the responsibility issue surely is mitigated by the fact each swimmer is signing a waiver so ultimately it is each of their own responsibility and risk

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, TheQ said:

Didn't the Broads Authority get prosecuted over deaths by drowning at Whitlingham?

Could BA have some resposibility if there is accident or injury at this event?

As since they have control of all the Broads, then they have a duty of care...

I've googled Whitlingham drownings:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=active&source=hp&ei=xdbEWvCPBuGIgAa01734BA&q=Drowning+at+Whitlingham+Broad&oq=Drowning+at+Whitlingham+Broad&gs_l=psy-ab.12..33i160k1l2.4106.18269.0.23171.31.21.0.9.9.0.145.1417.19j1.21.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.30.1602.6..0j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i22i30k1j33i22i29i30k1.106.XkaovMCLM0c

No evidence that the Authority has been prosecuted but I do notice that the H&S executive became involved. As far as the river is concerned the event is described as a wild water event thus surely natural hazards have to be accepted and I'm content that Mel and Co are well aware of that. My problem is the safety issue in regard to mixing incompatible activities on a restricted waterway.

 

[Wussername]

22 minutes ago, Simondo said:

I get the discussion about safety and shared watercourse usage and very valid it is, but the responsibility issue surely is mitigated by the fact each swimmer is signing a waiver so ultimately it is each of their own responsibility and risk

 

Can I sign a waiver as well please. Just in case it is held that an incident with my cruiser was deemed to be caused by my negligence or inexperience.

Andrew

[JennyMorgan]

13 minutes ago, Wussername said:

Can I sign a waiver as well please. Just in case it is held that an incident with my cruiser was deemed to be caused by my negligence or inexperience.

Andrew

I carry no insurance, as an angler, should I foul hook a swimmer.  Best join our Andrew in signing a waiver!!

[grendel]

should then all river users on the river that day sign a waiver, after all should they hit or hook a swimmer (or a swimmer swim into their path) they will probably be held liable whether the swimmer has or has not signed a waiver. either way the river user will feel responsible

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, Simondo said:

I get the discussion about safety and shared watercourse usage and very valid it is, but the responsibility issue surely is mitigated by the fact each swimmer is signing a waiver so ultimately it is each of their own responsibility and risk

 

That waiver would only absolve the organiser and even that could be debatable certainly not other river users especially if they were taking avoiding action.

Fred

[Guest]

Usually the responsibility for safety ends up with specific individuals, plus general responsibilities that lie with the organisation in charge, ie training, safety advice.

So the person/persons signing the risk assessment will will be personally liable for negligence, and could easily end up in court being personally prosecuted by the HSE if they believe they have failed in some way.

Also, the company may be liable for its systems that allowed negligence. That could extend to the owner/administrator of land an event was held on. Water likewise.

Note, is quite possible to organise an event where there is a death, and not be prosecuted if all the reasonable measures had been taken, but there still remained a risk. Motor sport is the obvious example where the only way of eliminating risk is to not race.

The Council was prosecuted by the HSE over the Whittlingham drowning. They were found not guilty. They had put 'sensible' measures in place.

A waiver is of very limited use as a defence of negligence. A waiver helps with making sure that people have understood the safety parameters. In this case any waiver could ask the competitor to undertake to have a float for visibility at all times. If someone was hurt without having one that would help the defence of negligence on the part of the organisers. 

This is worth reading:

http://www.river-swimming.co.uk/occu.htm

It seems our judges rather believe we should be allowed to take personal risks and not sue everyone if it goes wrong. 

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, batrabill said:

 A waiver helps with making sure that people have understood the safety parameters. In this case any waiver could ask the competitor to undertake to have a float for visibility at all times.

 

Even this is not black and white, the organisers of this event are making tow floats compulsory, but this is what the outdoor swimming society, a large well established organisation that run the Dart 10k, one of the biggest and most succesful in the country say on the subject:

"OSS events are tow-float free. We have ample safety cover who watch swimmers via their brightly coloured hats. Tow floats makes sighting swimmers harder, by doubling the number of brightly coloured objects in the water, and may entangle other swimmers. It is sometimes stated that tow floats make retrieving an unconscious swimmer easier, however they are not tested or rated to act as a safety device in this way"

[Guest]

Very little in safety is completely clear. The test is often words which are entirely open to legal definition like "reasonable".

I'm very fond of the quote from the above site I linked to:

'...they attack the liberty of the individual to engage in dangerous, but otherwise harmless, pastimes at his own risk and the liberty of citizens as a whole fully to enjoy the variety and quality of the landscape of this country. The pursuit of an unrestrained culture of blame and compensation has many evil consequences and one is certainly the interference with the liberty of the citizen'  

It's "dangerous but otherwise harmless" that makes me chuckle. 

As I said, our judges seem to think we should be allowed to kill ourselves at will.