Health and Safety Police Ban Swimmers From Doing Lengths 21
Forget staying in the shallow end. Swimmers at the Dagenham Swimming Pool in Essex are now only allowed to swim across the width of the pool for safety concerns. Officials say they would have to hire another lifeguard if people were allowed to swim lengths, as it is more difficult to keep an eye on them and there is not enough funding to pay for one. I can't quite wrap my head around how swimming one direction instead of another makes it any easier to spot someone drowning, and neither can local resident Dean Bradford. He says, "This is just the nanny state gone mad and it's affecting my life and other people's lives. It's another obstacle for people trying to get fit and healthy."
Ok, I can actually sort of picture this. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you put a lifeguard in the middle of the long side of the pool, they can pretty easily see the whole thing.
If you put the lifeguard in the middle of the short side, the far end is too far away, and you'd need another lifeguard at that end of the pool.
So, you prefer to put the lifeguard in the middle of the long side, to avoid having to hire two lifeguards.
However, if people are swimming across the length of the pool, putting a lifeguard in the middle of the long side would require the lifeguard to swim across the path of everyone who's doing laps in order to reach anyone needing help. If the people are swimming laps across the width of the pool, the lifeguard doesn't have to cross their paths to reach someone.
Sarcasm? (Score:3, Insightful)
- If a person was drowning, I imagine the other swimmers would at least stop doing laps and let the lifeguard through.
- Even if the other swimmers didn't stop doing laps, I don't think a lifeguard would have any trouble avoiding the swimmers or diving under them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, not sarcasm.
The place where they sit should be as close to as much as the pool as possible: not primarily because they can swim there faster, but mainly because they can see better.
The lifeguard sits above the pool so he/she can see what's happening. Other swimmers are in the pool and can't see anything. When seconds count, other swimmers won't be aware of what's happening until it's too late. They won't have a chance to give way to the lifeguard because the first indication of a problem they'll have is
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Speaking as someone who has been a Lifeguard, you are kinda right. You want to sit at the center of the long side of the pool so the worst case distance you might have to travel to get to a distressed swimmer is minimized.
I don't think getting past the other lap swimmers is likely to be a problem , certainly never was for me anyway. You have your big red float to fend them off with when needed and so they see you coming.
The issue is you can't keep a good watch on the swimmer in the near lane. You are in
The shape is curious (Score:3, Informative)
If this was an olympic size pool (50m x 25m, 2:1 aspect ratio) it would make some sense, but according to TFA the pool is 33m x 25m, 4:3 aspect ratio—or 5:4 ratio if you go by the imperial dimensions listed (108ft x 85ft), which curiously don't match the metric ones.
Either way, it's not *that* much longer one direction than the other. Seems silly to make the change, and even sillier to get one's knickers in a twist about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not silly to do it ... because the inexperienced swimmers can now do their "lengths" in shallow water and the experienced swimmers can do theirs in deep water.
Given the dimensions of this particular pool ... Silly to get your knickers in a twist over it and post it to all the "humorous news stories" web site out there? Most definitely.
Individual Responsibility (Score:1, Insightful)
What's in it for government?
Re: (Score:2)
Gov't response seems reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
That actually makes sense. When have you ever heard of a swimming event that wasn't a multiple of 25 meters in length? A 100m race is 2x50m (or 4x25m if you have a short pool), not 3x33.3m.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Almost all short pools are 25m long. This article is just another "rant against the media/government/whatever" from someone whose attention span belongs to the tl;dr generation and couldn't be bothered to actually find out why they did it.
Do it anyways. (Score:2)
Mass resistance; do it anyways.
If that doesn't work, have everyone piss in the pool.
(i know, I know, but nanny state nonsense pisses me off and makes me feel like maybe we should give these nannies som conventional nanny hassles).
Probably a lie (Score:3, Informative)
The Daily Mail is not a reliable source of information.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They should have done this a long time ago! (Score:2)
I would have done this too, but never claimed "health and safety" as a reason. First, the wierd length has to throw off anyone training for a swimming event. Second, reorienting the lanes allows the contour of the bottom to be used most effectively - weaker swimmers have a large shallow area to use, rather than having a little shallow area in each of twelve lanes. Changing this will create another three or four lanes for swimming, too.
However, If I were managing that pool, I'd be concerned about seeing a
Just drain the pools (Score:2)
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
We need more chlorine for the gene pool of the health & safety officials of Essex UK.
Suprise, suprise. (Score:2)
More illogical bullshit from the UK.
Probably negligent to have only one lifeguard (Score:2)
As has been mentioned, the real issue is seeing. The time difference to reach a person over a thirty meter distance is negligible. This is mostly because you don't jump in and swim across the pool. You walk quickly to the closest approach, and then - only if there is no alternative - you jump (not dive) into the pool.
When I taught lifesaving, the most important principle was this: don't turn a single drowning into a double drowning by acting rashly. Things can very easily go wrong. Which is more dan [freakonomicsbook.com]