Another Drowning On The Broads

[ExSurveyor]

Norfolk police latest announcement.

Another sad loss for a family.

 

A man has sadly died after entering the river in Great Yarmouth

Police were called at 9.10pm last night (Tuesday 20 August 2024) to reports a man in his 50s had entered the river Bure near North River Road while getting onto a rented boat.

He was recovered from the water but despite efforts by emergency services was pronounced dead a short time later.The family of the deceased has been informed.

The death is being treated as unexplained but is not thought to be suspicious.

[Mouldy]

Three in a week.  Not good.

[NeilB]

Sadly I think that now makes 4 water based deaths across Norfolk in the past week or so.  River Wensum, Wroxham Broad, Brancaster and now Yarmouth.

Very sad

[Mouldy]

19 minutes ago, NeilB said:

Sadly I think that now makes 4 water based deaths across Norfolk in the past week or so.  River Wensum, Wroxham Broad, Brancaster and now Yarmouth.

Very sad

I was only counting Broads related.  Also seen on FB that a yacht went down on The Bure in a squall sometime yesterday between St Benet’s and The Thurne.  All crew are safe and the boat has been refloated.

[Polly]

That’s a very windy corner, a yacht lost it there a while back and tangled in Rondonay’s rigging where she was moored. It picked the whole boat up and it dropped on the bank when our rigging broke. 
We got a new mast on the insurance and they were saved from piling into the rusty corner of a dredging barge behind us, saving them serious damage or injury. 

[LizG]

1 hour ago, Mouldy said:

I was only counting Broads related.  Also seen on FB that a yacht went down on The Bure in a squall sometime yesterday between St Benet’s and The Thurne.  All crew are safe and the boat has been refloated.

I've seen the photos and I think it was a half-decker out on hire

[Mouldy]

32 minutes ago, LizG said:

I've seen the photos and I think it was a half-decker out on hire

Sorry @LizG.  I don’t have a clue about those flappy things.  If it’s got a mast, it’s a yacht to me!

[Polly]

Half decker basically no cabin😊

[marshman]

I think the Wensum incident was further upstream above New Mills and not really Broads related - nonetheless a tragedy wherever it occurs.

[MY littleboat]

There have been a number of other drownings on the Broads this year prior to these recent incidents sadly. It has not been a good year. Water safety is everyone's business and this case is worrying in that it has again occurred at Great Yarmouth where family members have reported that they heard the man fall off the back but he was quickly swept away near to dusk.

Personally, I have witnessed some incredibly risky behaviour this year - only this weekend I saw two very young children sitting alone on the bow of a hire craft, without any buoyancy aids, whilst the boat (Unnamed) charged up the river at Surlingham.  I have seen the same on Breydon previously. People seem to have little appreciation of risk or, argue that not being safe is their business and no one elses - sadly this is not the case as professional and volunteer responders as well as good members of the public, place themselves in harms way all to often to save lives.

This incident sounds like an incredibly tragic accident and nothing more, but coupled with the fast running current, the difficulty in getting on to a vessel at Great Yarmouth and the high sided channel, followed by excessive mud, the chances of survival undoubtedly reduce exponentially.

Another family devastated and potentially, another avoidable loss.

[dom]

After today's incident, I looked at the @BroadsAuthority information on their website about Yarmouth yacht station and available services and notice there's still no mention of storage lockers for lifejackets.

No doubt they'll hold their own inquest into the event, but I can't help but wonder if BA can't do a lot more in terms of a) making clear that people should ALWAYS be wearing lifejackets getting on and off at this site and b) making clear that lifejackets can be safely stored on shore in lockers. There isn't the slightest mention of either point on their website at present. It's very easy to see how someone going ashore might decide to leave a lifejacket behind in the misguided belief that they'll have to carry it with them.

[Cheesey69]

I’ve said it once and will say it again, the best advice from my sailing instructor:

THE WATER IS ALWAYS TRYING TO KILL YOU AND ITS VERY PATIENT 

[Meantime]

I think it's a bit early to be having a go at the BA when so little is actually known about this incident. 

However on the safety page, the first safety tip is, which applies to all situations, not just Yarmouth yacht station.

Our top Broads water safety tips

Always wear a buoyancy aid at all times if you are canoeing/kayaking/paddleboarding, whilst on boats, while getting on and off vessels and when close to the water's edge. Wear sensible clothing and shoes for your chosen activity.

I'm not going to speculate on what happened in this incident, but I know on my boat smokers will go out the back of the boat to smoke, or perhaps just for some fresh air or to take in the scenery with a cup of coffee in the morning. A slip or trip could very easily change those situations. Food for thought for everyone.

Only last week I was moored at Burgh Castle when a boat came into moor and appeared to be having difficulty, he was solo cruising. I grabbed my lifejacket and put it on and went to assist. I arrived at the boat at the same time as someone else from the hire boat moored behind him, who arrived without a lifejacket on. The solo cruiser had managed to get himself into a stern on position and insisted on being pulled around against the tide, I guess to make it easier for when he left, but it made it harder to moor him up. The tug of war against the tide could easily have resulted in a slip.

It is all too easy when rushing to assist someone else to forget to put a lifejacket on, but all the more essential on very tidal moorings.

[dom]

1 hour ago, Meantime said:

I think it's a bit early to be having a go at the BA when so little is actually known about this incident. 

However on the safety page, the first safety tip is, which applies to all situations, not just Yarmouth yacht station.

Our top Broads water safety tips

Always wear a buoyancy aid at all times if you are canoeing/kayaking/paddleboarding, whilst on boats, while getting on and off vessels and when close to the water's edge. Wear sensible clothing and shoes for your chosen activity.

I think the danger with relying on that is that the majority of hirers obviously decide after a day or two that the rivers are actually pretty innocuous and that wearing a lifejacket is overkill. Great Yarmouth Yacht Station is probably one of the most dangerous points on the Broads though, so it really needs pointing out explicitly on BA's information page that wearing a lifejacket at this site is not just advisable, but imperative - maybe even mandatory.

I'd concur with your point about it being too early to point fingers at BA, but the fact about promoting the lockers remains. It may or may not have been a factor in the last incident - but, more importantly, could stop the next. I think it was probably Grendel who first mentioned it in another discussion. BA's own staff were involved in that discussion at the time, yet nothing has been added to their info to make people more aware. If I were an uninitiated holidaymaker heading into Yarmouth, I probably would assume I'd got to lug a jacket around and think sod it, I'll leave it behind. The fact you can wear a jacket and leave it somewhere safe on shore really ought to appear at the top of any info about GYYS.

[Mouldy]

40 minutes ago, dom said:

I think the danger with relying on that is that the majority of hirers obviously decide after a day or two that the rivers are actually pretty innocuous and that wearing a lifejacket is overkill. Great Yarmouth Yacht Station is probably one of the most dangerous points on the Broads though, so it really needs pointing out explicitly on BA's information page that wearing a lifejacket at this site is not just advisable, but imperative - maybe even mandatory.

Making the wearing of life jackets mandatory, even only at Great Yarmouth, is absolutely pointless unless there is someone there 24/7 to enforce it.  There is no way that the entire length of the moorings could be monitored even if the Yacht Station was manned overnight.  How would you stop someone nipping out to the stern of their boat for a smoke, perhaps having over imbibed during the evening, slipping and falling in.

Whatever is done, there are always going to be accidents, however tragic.  You just cannot mitigate against every eventuality.

One of the FB groups is blaming the BA, aside from one who is questioning the design of the boat, with all sorts of allegations being laid at their door.  As much as I’m not their biggest fan, I think that without all relevant information being available, this is yet another trial by keyboard warrior.  Amongst their suggestions is to move the Yacht Station to the old Marina Quays site and use pontoons for mooring.  A great idea in principle, however the walkway along the quay heading is extremely narrow, it’s further away from the majority of the tourist attractions at Yarmouth and planning may be more difficult now, due to the housing that has sprung up around the site.

Maybe, they just need to close Yarmouth Yacht Station and tell any visitors who wish to visit to either moor at Acle and get a train, or Stracey and get a taxi.

 

[dom]

29 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

Making the wearing of life jackets mandatory, even only at Great Yarmouth, is absolutely pointless unless there is someone there 24/7 to enforce it.  There is no way that the entire length of the moorings could be monitored even if the Yacht Station was manned overnight.  How would you stop someone nipping out to the stern of their boat for a smoke, perhaps having over imbibed during the evening, slipping and falling in.

I don't understand the logic with this. Seems extremely short-sighted to disregard something which could mitigate risk 75% of the time, just because it's not 100% effective. In effect, it's like saying we'll scrap speed limits, because there'll always be people who break them and we can't always be there to enforce.

I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment about keyboard warriors in this case either. If you don't like what they're saying, by all means write them off as misguided and ignore them, but decrying people who want to actively prevent needless deaths isn't particularly well advised.

Ultimately, Dr.Packman has probably made a bit of a rod for his own back constantly going on about how more rangers were needed to prevent another accident at GYYS and using that as justification for toll increases. If, as seems likely, there's an inquest in this case, it's good that causes and mitigation measures are put forward by the general public. A lot may be naive and misinformed, but there's a possibility something might come out of it to prevent future issues.

[Mouldy]

4 minutes ago, dom said:

I don't understand the logic with this. Seems extremely short-sighted to disregard something which could mitigate risk 75% of the time, just because it's not 100% effective. In effect, it's like saying we'll scrap speed limits, because there'll always be people who break them and we can't always be there to enforce.

I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment about keyboard warriors in this case either. If you don't like what they're saying, by all means write them off as misguided and ignore them, but decrying people who want to actively prevent needless deaths isn't particularly well advised.

Ultimately, Dr.Packman has probably made a bit of a rod for his own back constantly going on about how more rangers were needed to prevent another accident at GYYS and using that as justification for toll increases. If, as seems likely, there's an inquest in this case, it's good that causes and mitigation measures are put forward by the general public. A lot may be naive and misinformed, but there's a possibility something might come out of it to prevent future issues.

I still don’t understand how making the wearing of life jackets mandatory will help.  You mention speed limits.  They’re mandatory, but often ignored.  Not only that, but when measures are in place to enforce the speed limits, like average speed cameras and camera vans, folk often comment that they’re only there for revenue purposes.

No one is suggesting that wearing a life jacket isn’t beneficial, but like I said, if someone has had a little too much to drink on board their boat and pops outside for a smoke without putting a life jacket on, what is the benefit of making it mandatory.

[CambridgeCabby]

Making live savers mandatory is impossible to police , the only thing the BA and hire yards can do is stress their importance in the literature and upon handover .

Sadly I would say that more individuals choose not to wear them than those that do .

I always wear one when cruising solo and Katie and I have been wearing them underway since Kates post when she went in at Ludham , it’s automatic now similar to clicking the seatbelt on in a car . 

[dom]

46 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

I still don’t understand how making the wearing of life jackets mandatory will help. 

I'm struggling to see what's hard to understand? If you make them mandatory (and we're just talking about at that site), most people will adhere to the rules. That means most of the time, if an incident occurs, the severity of the incident will likely be reduced. There was another incident recently in the middle of the day and broad daylight, where the man in question wasn't wearing a lifejacket and only escaped a similar fate by the slimmest of margins. If he had fallen in, he may well have been another drowning. Mandatory lifejackets would mitigate that event. It's also entirely possible that the victim in the last incident will prove to have been sensible and sober and would have worn one if told to do so - in which case, the outcome might well have been different.

The mandatory comment was largely a throwaway remark and caveated with maybe anway. The real point was BA not properly documenting a critical safety point, ie. you can store lifejackets on shore, so please always wear them when boarding and on deck at GYYS.

Either way, something will probably come about from recent events. We've had more drownings in the last 13 or so months than in the preceding 10 years. The MAIB report for the last incident resulted in a greater onus on BA to both check paperwork and carry out inspections on hire boats to pick up on things like inadequate guard rails, etc. There was also an increased emphasis on handover processes to make sure hirers were properly informed on operation and safety. That another death has sadly occurred in the same location will no doubt prove to be very difficult for BA and its management - particularly when the last incident report also stated "in most situations a lifejacket could mean the difference between survival and drowning and wearing them on deck is essential".

 

[dom]

9 minutes ago, CambridgeCabby said:

I always wear one when cruising solo and Katie and I have been wearing them underway since Kates post when she went in at Ludham , it’s automatic now similar to clicking the seatbelt on in a car . 

I'm involved in activity where it's mandatory to wear one. The specification was recently increased from 150N to 180N, and groin straps are also required. Two minutes after putting it on, you forget you're wearing it.

[RumPunch]

Needs to be personal choice. Look at my profile - sitting inside a recessed cockpit that I'd physically have to climb up to be in danger. Once I get ready to sail, going on side decks etc and whilst under sail, then it goes on.

It depends on what you are on, what you are doing, weather etc. I'd never take my dinghy out without PFD for instance

[Mouldy]

1 minute ago, dom said:

I'm struggling to see what's hard to understand? If you make them mandatory (and we're just talking about at that site), most people will adhere to the rules. That means most of the time, if an incident occurs, the severity of the incident will likely be reduced. There was another incident recently in the middle of the day and broad daylight, where the man in question wasn't wearing a lifejacket and only escaped a similar fate by the slimmest of margins. If he had fallen in, he may well have been another drowning. Mandatory lifejackets would mitigate that event. It's also entirely possible that the victim in the last incident will prove to have been sensible and sober and would have worn one if told to do so - in which case, the outcome might well have been different.

The mandatory comment was largely a throwaway remark and caveated with maybe anway. The real point was BA not properly documenting a critical safety point, ie. you can store lifejackets on shore, so please always where them when boarding and on deck.

Either way, something will probably come about from recent events. We've had more drownings in the last 13 or so months than in the preceding 10 years. The MAIB report for the last incident resulted in a greater onus on BA to both check paperwork and carry out inspections on hire boats to pick up on things like inadequate guard rails, etc. There was also an increased emphasis on handover processes to make sure hirers were properly informed on operation and safety. That another death has sadly occurred in the same location will no doubt prove to be very difficult for BA and its management - particularly when the last incident report also stated "in most situations a lifejacket could mean the difference between survival and drowning and wearing them on deck is essential".

 

Yep, get all that, but mandatory would be difficult to enforce when there is no one there to enforce it.

Medical evidence suggests that smoking can and does adversely affect people’s health, yet some folk still chose to ignore the advice.  Weekly alcohol intake limits are suggested in an attempt to avoid alcohol related illnesses, but again, those are frequently ignored by people.  That is their choice.

There is a limit to what can be enforced and a certain amount must be left to individuals to decide what advice they chose to follow or ignore.  If, when this incident has been fully investigated, the BA are forced to take additional measures, I do fear what they might be.  Maybe installation of full pushpits may become necessary to the stern of all hire craft.  Who knows?  I remember back in the late nineties it was suggested that fitting seat belts to motorcycles was being considered.  Anyone who has witnessed a motorcycle accident with the bike cartwheeling down the road will understand how stupid that idea was.

As for water related deaths, according to the ITV website there have been six over the last week, two on the north Norfolk coast, one in Cambridge and three on The Broads.  Only one of those three can really be described as Broads related, as there must be a question mark over the causes over the one in Norwich and the other in Wroxham Broad.

[Meantime]

I think the discussion about mandatory wearing of lifejackets is largely irrelevant as it would probably require the creation of a new Byelaw and isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

The BA did hand out keyrings reminding people to wear lifejackets a couple of seasons ago. 

With regards to the lockers, whilst these are useful, from memory there is a very limited amount, I doubt there would be enough for all the boats if the yacht station was full.

For years people have managed at Yarmouth before the lockers were installed. Its another aid but not the be all and end all. Perhaps it is as important if not more important to stress the need for always having one hand on the boat holding onto a rail when moving around the deck, and to stress just how fast the tide can be at Yarmouth.

[grendel]

if you made lifejackets mandatory, what would you do regarding those who were overweight and could not get one to fit, or those with medical reasons not to wear one- would you just ban them from having a boating holiday?

there are all sorts of things such as seatbelts in cars that are considered essential, yet there are those who are exempted from wearing them.

there are occasions when at great yarmouth that I do wear a life jacket, and those that I dont, a decision I choose to make depending on the circumstances, of all the times I have fallen in the one time I struggled most was the time I was wearing a lifejacket- even though on that occasion I took the choice not to bother inflating it, it certainly hampered my efforts.

[dom]

11 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

If, when this incident has been fully investigated, the BA are forced to take additional measures, I do fear what they might be.  Maybe installation of full pushpits may become necessary to the stern of all hire craft. 

I think given a free hand, MAIB would have forced this as a result of the last incident at GYYS. It's not an unreasonable thing to think, as it would probably have stopped that incident occurring. The primary objection is difficulty mooring but, in most cases, movable access chains can overcome most issues.

In the end, the recommendation was toned down:

Undertake a suitable and sufficient risk assessment relating to the risks of people falling overboard from all areas on each of its hire craft, and implement appropriate control measures, which not only meet the requirements of the Recreational Craft Directive and other applicable standards, but, if considered necessary, also exceed the minimum standards to ensure that the risks are mitigated to a tolerable level.

The recommendation was only made directly to Ferry Marina on that occasion. I suspect we may see something similar directed at all yards in the near future, with a strong obligation to enforce for BA.