So You Can Go Swimming!

[grendel]

we ask do the organisers always get it right? well I  found this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3216996/Body-rescuers-searching-triathlete-feared-drowned-competing-swimming-leg-race.html

and that was in open water, with no river traffic to complicate matters,

not noticed to be missing until a spare bicycle was found after the swimming section.

[Bound2Please]

4 minutes ago, grendel said:

we ask do the organisers always get it right? well I  found this

Notice the picture of the start at a rough count there was less than 50 in the water and look at the room they take up!!!!

[JohnK]

 
 
That's exactly how the majority feel about this event and yt for having the interests of others safety at heart we are labeled Killjoy's !! 

Whoa there tiger.
Please don’t assume you speak for the majority.
I’m much more aligned with smellyloo but I haven’t got involved because I don’t want to also be the brunt of what’s fast becoming bullying in my opinion. I suspect I’m not alone.
Challenging opinions is fine, accusing people of not knowing things, not having seen things is not ok in my opinion.

[Vaughan]

And that was a 750m swim, not 11 km as proposed on the Waveney.

[Vaughan]

1 minute ago, JohnK said:

Whoa there tiger.
Please don’t assume you speak for the majority.
I’m much more aligned with smellyloo but I haven’t got involved because I don’t want to also be the brunt of what’s fast becoming bullying in my opinion. I suspect I’m not alone.
Challenging opinions is fine, accusing people of not knowing things, not having seen things is not ok in my opinion.

So where is the bullying? I don't quite follow you. Personally I am speaking from local knowledge, waterborne experience and a wish to safeguard life. I hope I have no need of bullying to get those points across.

[Vaughan]

18 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

The Thames, however, is a very different animal to the Waveney!

I forgot to mention, there is hardly any current in summer and it is always going the same way. The river is also maintained at a constant height by the locks and weirs.

[JohnK]

So where is the bullying? I don't quite follow you. Personally I am speaking from local knowledge, waterborne experience and a wish to safeguard life. I hope I have no need of bullying to get those points across.

Firstly I’m not saying everyone is doing it.
I’m not going to quote individual posts (as that will be even more diversive) but I think when it becomes personal in an attempt to suppress a person’s opinion that’s bullying. In my opinion some of the posts above are personal.
But if forum opinion is that that’s ok I’ll leave it.

[vanessan]

1 hour ago, vanessan said:

If the BA had announced on its website, Broadsheet or whatever, that the River Waveney would be closed to all boats on Sunday 1st July between 8.30am and 1.30pm, what do people think the general response would have been?

Can I ask this again please, only JM has responded (quite emphatically!) or is everyone in agreement?

If the BA was charging a nominal fee which was going straight into the Navigation coffers, would that be acceptable?

[grendel]

1 minute ago, JohnK said:

 

Whoa there tiger.
Please don’t assume you speak for the majority.
I’m much more aligned with smellyloo but I haven’t got involved because I don’t want to also be the brunt of what’s fast becoming bullying in my opinion. I suspect I’m not alone.
Challenging opinions is fine, accusing people of not knowing things, not having seen things is not ok in my opinion.

 

I dont see any bullying, unless its by the supporters of the idea, saying the rest who raise safety concerns dont know what they are on about. well maybe not we are not all wild swimmers after all,

 but can you honestly say the safety concerns that have been raised are not valid.

to me ignoring the safety concerns of other river users is much like sticking your fingers in your ears and going la-la-la because you dont want to hear that others might have concerns for safety that might stop them doing what they want without weighing the consequences. The incident I linked to above involved search and rescue teams for over a day- at an easily accessible location - for a 750m course. now imagine a similar search over 11km, this would probably necessitate closure of that section of river until complete.

None off us here want to see an accident happen at such an event, which is why we are raising our concerns over the suitability of that stretch of river.

another thought that suddenly rears its head, since access to the banks by supporters is difficult, how many will get the idea to hire a cruiser of day boat, and either follow the race or moor up at strategic points (further narrowing the navigable width for through traffic).

[grendel]

4 minutes ago, vanessan said:

Can I ask this again please, only JM has responded (quite emphatically!) or is everyone in agreement?

If the BA was charging a nominal fee which was going straight into the Navigation coffers, would that be acceptable?

If I was going to be on the rivers that weekend, and planned on negotiating that section, I would certainly be contacting the BA to complain, as I will not be, I wont.

[Vaughan]

1 minute ago, vanessan said:

Can I ask this again please, only JM has responded (quite emphatically!) or is everyone in agreement?

I think it is a fair comparison that they don't close off for the 3 Rivers or the Yare Navigation Races, nor did they in the days of the Thorpe water frolic, so it might be best not to create a precedent!

It goes back to the feeling that if this event needs 11 km of river closed off for nearly a whole day in the high season, just for reasons of safety, then it is not a suitable event. There are hardly going to be crowds of tourist spectators watching from the bank and thus being entertained by it, are there? In other words, as an activity, it is selfish.

[Bound2Please]

7 minutes ago, vanessan said:

If the BA was charging a nominal fee which was going straight into the Navigation coffers, would that be acceptable?

I would still be against it on HSE, the lack spectator viewing positions, and that its far from a suitable location. Then that the organisers should donate 33% of the entry FEE TO the RNLI and or HEMSBY LIFEBOAT for the safety support.

[JohnK]

but can you honestly say the safety concerns that have been raised are not valid.

I don’t believe I said anything even close to that.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Vaughan said:

I think it is a fair comparison that they don't close off for the 3 Rivers or the Yare Navigation Races, nor did they in the days of the Thorpe water frolic, so it might be best not to create a precedent!

It goes back to the feeling that if this event needs 11 km of river closed off for nearly a whole day in the high season, just for reasons of safety, then it is not a suitable event. There are hardly going to be crowds of tourist spectators watching from the bank and thus being entertained by it, are there? In other words, as an activity, it is selfish.

For spectator interest, all that most are going to see is the last 200m, so to close 11Km of river for an event that is mostly for the benefit of the participants and organisers does not seem fair. Even if it was for an equal benefit to participants/spectators & organisers it does not reduce the safety risk one bit.

[grendel]

11 minutes ago, JohnK said:

 

I don’t believe I said anything even close to that.

 

sorry, that wasnt aimed at you in particular, I was using it as a generalised 'you', my apologies for not making that clearer.

[Guest]

I would have thought that by now given the overwhelming identification of hazards and risks associated with holding the event on that specific section of water, by people who are quite clearly experienced and knowledgeable in these matters, that either BA or the organisers would have issued  a statement to the effect that they will review the safety, timing and location of the event.

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Wussername said:

Two years ago it was closed for a duck race for a couple of hours, may be longer . Boats were not allowed to go down river from the yacht basin.

Andrew

That was illegal, I'm sure of that. Most things on the Broads happen by common consent as is why perhaps no one objected. I would hate to think that that closure has set a precedent for this commercial enterprise. 

[smellyloo]

17 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

I would have thought that by now given the overwhelming identification of hazards and risks associated with holding the event on that specific section of water, by people who are quite clearly experienced and knowledgeable in these matters, that either BA or the organisers would have issued  a statement to the effect that they will review the safety, timing and location of the event.

So, with complete dismissal of others opinion you claim your view to be of such importance that it is the only one that merits consideration.

We have been told that the organisers entered into discussion re these maters with several respected bodies and got approval for the event.

I, and others who support the event have been accused of having little regard for safety. When I am told that the safety aspects surrounding this event have been considered I believe them. That may be naive but I feel it is better than imagining untold catastrophes that may befall the swimmers, the safety boats, the emergency services etc etc.

If you have proof that the organiser has disregarded safety concerns then that is a different matter however I have read nothing more than speculation that this has been so.

[JennyMorgan]

I have looked at the full size file of the picture that Grendel posted. What is clear is that a large proportion of the competitors swim very low in the water, indeed with their faces underwater thus reducing their visibility. I also found this picture, bit extreme, perhaps but a quick count shows about twenty abreast, coincidently the same as each group in the proposed race.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, smellyloo said:

So, with complete dismissal of others opinion you claim your view to be of such importance that it is the only one that merits consideration.

We have been told that the organisers entered into discussion re these maters with several respected bodies and got approval for the event.

I, and others who support the event have been accused of having little regard for safety. When I am told that the safety aspects surrounding this event have been considered I believe them. That may be naive but I feel it is better than imagining untold catastrophes that may befall the swimmers, the safety boats, the emergency services etc etc.

If you have proof that the organiser has disregarded safety concerns then that is a different matter however I have read nothing more than speculation that this has been so.

I don't think I have dismissed anyone's view, expressing my own views yes.

Saying that there has been discussion with several respected bodies does not sound very convincing however thorough those discussions were, as there ares no specifics or detail given in any of the responses suggesting the risk is not as some would believe. "Imagining untold catastrophes that may befall the swimmers, the safety boats, the emergency services" is actually what a risk assessment is all about. A risk assessment does not give the answer as to whether an event is safe or not, it highlights the risks and identifies measures to reduce those risk. The ultimate decision as to whether a practice is safe or not, is made by those reviewing the assessment. Perhaps you could share who reviewed the assessment and "signed off" the event as being safe.

Neither have I suggested that the organisers have disregarded safety issues, but speaking for myself, had I reviewed the risk assessment as I imagine it would read given the risks identified on this thread, I would not have "signed off" the event of being safe.

[grendel]

we have no proof that the organiser has disregarded safety concerns,  but we see no mitigation measures that have been put in place either. if a risk has been recognised and assessed, then mitigation measures must be put into effect.

If I were to do a risk assessment I would start by outlining the risk.

risk, swimmer hit by boat.

then I would look at the worst outcome of the risk

worst outcome, death

This would trigger a red risk, that would mean it would have to be mitigated or removed

Then would come the mitigation, ie what could be done to remove or reduce the risk.

mitigation, 1. remove the boats - this is not possible - navigation to be maintained

                    2. separate the boats from the swimmers - make marked traffic lanes to separate the two, make the swimmers more visible, etc etc

as part of the process, if you cannot remove the risk of death or severe injury, then the activity cannot proceed, and a new way of performing the task has to be found.

This was training I received at the HSE laboratory itself, a 3 day course for those who have to review other peoples risk assessments. we went into these things at great depth, being taught by one of the leading experts in the country.

I have to say, it has been very beneficial to me in the way I look at tasks now, does it stop me doing things - no, but it does make me think first.

 

[batrabill]

5 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I have looked at the full size file of the picture that Grendel posted. What is clear is that a large proportion of the competitors swim very low in the water, indeed with their faces underwater thus reducing their visibility. I also found this picture, bit extreme, perhaps but a quick count shows about twenty abreast, coincidently the same as each group in the proposed race.

Tow floats are compulsory.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, vanessan said:

Can I ask this again please, only JM has responded (quite emphatically!) or is everyone in agreement?

If the BA was charging a nominal fee which was going straight into the Navigation coffers, would that be acceptable?

No it dosn`t change the safety situation one bit which is the prime concern.

Fred

[Guest]

1 minute ago, batrabill said:

Tow floats are compulsory.

Floats and rope, more paraphernalia to get caught in propellers and drag swimmers under.

The list of risks is getting longer 

[dnks34]

I bet the BA are reading this thread and sitting back feeling smug as the event they authorised has produced the desired response and muddied relations with (some) Toll Payers (whom they clearly dont give a damm for) even further, disillusion us some more ready for hitting us with the next Toll increase.  

If there was any common sense on the executive payroll at the BA a more suitable location might well have been suggested.