Slashdot Mirror
Health and Safety Police Ban Swimmers From Doing Lengths
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."
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.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
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.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
What's in it for government?
- It would take just a few extra seconds in distance for a lifeguard sitting in the middle of the length of an olympic-size pool to reach someone.
- 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.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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).
The Daily Mail is not a reliable source of information.
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 all corners of the pool from one location - refraction and reflections may make it hard to see into distant corners. No matter where the guard stands, one corner is at least 70 feet away. I can understand their concern about having to hire another guard.
Problem solved.
They might be concerned about a lifeguard in the middle of the long side having to cross over several lane markers to get to someone swimming crosswise to them.
That's not a big deal, but it is a slight delay.
Could also make extracting them harder.
On the other hand, you may be able to use the lane marker for some support... you aren't supposed to and it could theoretically break, but practically speaking...
More illogical bullshit from the UK.
There is a war going on for your mind.
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 dangerous in the home, a gun or a swimming pool?
I worked as a lifeguard for five or six years, mostly two-hour stints for indoor pools. I never worked a shift alone - if only one lifeguard showed up, the pool closed (or did not open). Normal complement was three, so that we were covered for things like trips to the restroom. The other standing rule was that you didn't sit down - not in the elevated chairs, and not in a chair at the side of the pool. We were expected to walk the pool. roughly opposite. The rationale was not distance to potential problems, it was so that we would see what was happening.
One guard might be sufficient if there are only a few people swimming, say four or five. I'd be disinclined to work such a pool, though.
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...