So You Can Go Swimming!

[vanessan]

7 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

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

Fred

Fred, my first question was regarding closing the river altogether thus removing the boat dangers. The charge for use of the river was in view of that closure. 

[grendel]

I just think they will be reading this, copying it down as we are doing all their risk assessments for them (well we can but hope).

[dnks34]

Personally I dont think in the current regime any part of the navigation should be being closed for anything less than emergency circumstances. 

[grendel]

Just now, vanessan said:

Fred, my first question was regarding closing the river altogether thus removing the boat dangers. The charge for use of the river was in view of that closure. 

closing the river to boat traffic would simplify the risks involved, but does not remove every safety concern. whether they would be allowed to restrict the navigation in this way is debateable.

It does not remove risks due to restricted access for emergency services, or some of the other risks highlighted however.

[batrabill]

5 minutes ago, grendel said:

I just think they will be reading this, copying it down as we are doing all their risk assessments for them (well we can but hope).

Mel wrote this, perhaps you have forgotten?

"I have addressed numerous safety concerns raised by this forum already which have been documented within risk assessments, normal operations procedures, an emergency action plan, and go/no go criteria. All those documents have been assessed or are being assessed by the Broads Authority, insurers and the RNLI to name a few. It's not been simply write a document and you're good to go, the reviews are rigorous and for the right reasons which I welcome."

[grendel]

numerous maybe, but all of the safety concerns? many new ones have been proposed since Mels initial response.

[dnks34]

Unless I dreamt it Im certain I passed a guy swimming up the Wensum last year, but one guy with a dinghy following him, not 200 people setting off in groups of 50!

What will occur next I ask myself, swimming time trails on the new cut, surfing on Breydon, scuba diving in Salhouse Broad, open the flood gates and they will come. 

Nobody on this thread wants to knock anyone elses pass time or interest, its all about choice of location, its not suitable as not only is it fair to say it may be unsafe but it will probably expecting other interests to move out the way for a commercial operation that doesnt even contribute, why are people struggling to not understand this as a valid point of view!!!!

[High6]

2 hours ago, grendel said:

we have not seen considered a collision between the river traffic and the safety craft

One might also imagine that a substantial number of day boats might be hired by "support" personnel carrying water etc to their individual friends/family for the 5 hour duration along the length of the course.

I put this whole event in the same class as spending tens of thousands of pounds building a motorway bridge for bats ( I speak as a bat enthusiast) - stark raving bonkers. Perhaps a few of these hardy enthusiasts would care to swim around in front of Wroxham bridge for a couple of hours and tell us how it is.

[grendel]

 

2 minutes ago, High6 said:

One might also imagine that a substantial number of day boats might be hired by "support" personnel carrying water etc to their individual friends/family for the 5 hour duration along the length of the course.

one would hope then that some advice on approaching a swimmer in the water would be given, eg shut off engine so that there is low risk to the swimmer from the prop - ah, but then they cannot manouver can they. as philosophical says - one more risk.

[batrabill]

I'm sure you can play, "and another risk..." all day.

If this goes ahead - and it might fall on safety, or maybe people won't sign up - we will all be playing "I told you so" as JM has already posted in several locations.

[Vaughan]

5 minutes ago, High6 said:

Perhaps a few of these hardy enthusiasts would care to swim around in front of Wroxham bridge for a couple of hours and tell us how it is.

Be careful what you wish for, as this is a Ltd company, Broads Swimming. So what will be their great event next year? Wroxham to Horning, on a Sunday in July?

I cannot think of a suitable place on the Broads for such an event except (perhaps   ) from Trowse Eye to Surlingham on the Yare. So I still go for the Wonderful Whitlingham Gravel Pits! 

[Vaughan]

4 minutes ago, batrabill said:

If this goes ahead - and it might fall on safety, or maybe people won't sign up - we will all be playing "I told you so" as JM has already posted in several locations.

You have mis-quoted him there. He said he didn't want to say "I told you so" if someone got drowned.

[MauriceMynah]

Not wishing to pour oil on troubled seagulls I've just read this on one of the wild swimming web sites...

"Discover the best wild swim locations in Norfolk and the Broads whether a river swim, a lake or even a waterfall."

I make no further comment on this thread... probably :)

[batrabill]

That’s a gloriously fine distinction but if you say so.....

[Guest]

2 hours ago, JohnK said:

 

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.

 

Right for a start I hope you are not referring to me I'm the expert on being bullied more then the other way around , I haven't seen anything that I would consider pressing the report button for on this thread though I have used the report button a fair bit this yr on other threads .

2 different opinions are just that no bullying Involved at all .

If however yiu feel you are being bullied the report the post and state why your reporting it that way it can be felt with .

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, vanessan said:

Fred, my first question was regarding closing the river altogether thus removing the boat dangers. The charge for use of the river was in view of that closure. 

I thought we had come to the conclusion closing the river is not an option.

Fred

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

Mel wrote this, perhaps you have forgotten?

"I have addressed numerous safety concerns raised by this forum already which have been documented within risk assessments, normal operations procedures, an emergency action plan, and go/no go criteria. All those documents have been assessed or are being assessed by the Broads Authority, insurers and the RNLI to name a few. It's not been simply write a document and you're good to go, the reviews are rigorous and for the right reasons which I welcome."

All those documents have been assessed or are being assessed by the Broads Authority, insurers and the RNLI to name a few.

I missed that earlier "or are being assessed" would imply that it is not a fait accompli. It does not not specify just who has signed off and who is yet to, or who the few others are. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

Not wishing to pour oil on troubled seagulls I've just read this on one of the wild swimming web sites...

"Discover the best wild swim locations in Norfolk and the Broads whether a river swim, a lake or even a waterfall."

I make no further comment on this thread... probably :)

I read that and one of the locations was Lammas, the only waterfall near there is the weir at Buxton Mill.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

All those documents have been assessed or are being assessed by the Broads Authority, insurers and the RNLI to name a few.

I missed that earlier "or are being assessed" would imply that it is not a fait accompli. It does not not specify just who has signed off and who is yet to, or who the few others are. 

Forget to ask if the Directors of the new company formed to hold this event are part of the "sign off"

[dnks34]

When all said and done those of us arguing on the side of it being an innapropriate location is probably making the organisers even more determined to ensure it succeeds. 

I feel no animosity toward them as such but my waining respect for the Broads Authority has fallen to a level I didnt even know existed for allowing it in that location in the first place. 

Lets hope it all goes ok for them but the organisers themselves see the pitfalls raised with their own eyes and seek out a more appropriate location for the future.

There has got to be so many other more suitable locations to do something like this but introducing a new tradition such as swimming en mass to the navigable Broads in my opinion is a mistake, it might only be 1 day.....for now.  I can also only think the reason for choosing such a location may be a financial one and if its at the expense of others that isnt sitting well at all. 

 

[Bound2Please]

One glaring question that niggles me here. Are the WRC allowing the start there for a financial gain ?... If so is that gain worth it to their customers camping, moored, staying in rooms and yurts etc. Has thought been given to all these people?

[Wussername]

31 minutes ago, Bound2Please said:

One glaring question that niggles me here. Are the WRC allowing the start there for a financial gain ?... If so is that gain worth it to their customers camping, moored, staying in rooms and yurts etc. Has thought been given to all these people?

Perhaps the organisers and participants are their customers camping, moored, staying in rooms and yurts etc. Not a niggle for me though if they are or not. Down to WRC I suppose.

Andrew

[vanessan]

On 28/03/2018 at 20:19, ranworthbreeze said:

As mentioned we are working closely with the Broads Authority who have been insistent that the event adheres to river by-laws. E.g. swimmers are to stick close to edge of the river.

This is something Mel Holland wrote in her first message. So swimmers will stick to the starboard (right) side of the river. Somebody seems to have forgotten that the ‘food and drink stops’, as they are called on the swim website, are on the opposite side of the river when heading towards Beccles. That means then that possibly up to 50 swimmers will suddenly change direction and head across the river. Or will they wait for oncoming or overtaking boats to pass? Somehow I don’t think so. Maybe one of the members who are keen on this happening could explain how this will work? (I am still assuming that the moorings which will be made available are North Cove and Worlingham, I can’t think of any others.)

[batrabill]

Contact Mel

[vanessan]

4 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Contact Mel

Good idea, will do. Pity you are unable to answer the question, would have been quicker.