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."

Comments

Ok, I can actually sort of picture this.

[clone53421]

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.

Re:Ok, I can actually sort of picture this.

[DarkOx]

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 a raised chair or if that is not installed an upright type lawn chair right at the edge of the pool. When the near lane swimmer is in the central area of the pool (closest to you) they are below your field of vision where you can see most of the pool. This is why they usually locate a second guard at the opposite side; if there are enough swimmers to justify one. He or she will actually be able to watch your side of the pool.

Red Cross LGs are trained to keep an eye out below them when working alone, this is not ideal though because it adds time to your total survey of the pool.

Someone is going to point out that that can't be more than part of a second and so what. Nope you also can't see people who are under water due to reflections and other lensing properties. So you need to actually keep track of how many people are in the pool and where they are, if you have to re-sight them each time because you move your head such that they leave your peripheral vision it takes more time to keep that count.

You need to know when your count decreases its because someone got out of the pool so you need to spot them doing that. Its unnerving to say the least when you don't catch that. Suddenly your fifteen swimmers is fourteen and you have to find out why fast.

The shape is curious

[pushing-robot]

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.

Sarcasm?

[GameboyRMH]

- 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.

Re:Sarcasm?

[clone53421]

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 the whistle and the splash when the lifeguard dives in. It's easier to avoid someone who's moving directly toward/away from you than someone who's swimming laterally across your path, so it makes sense to have them swimming the width instead of the length.

Gov't response seems reasonable

[Just Some Guy]

But Barking and Dagenham Council, which runs the pool, said they had changed the swimming lanes to run width-ways to help people training for 50metre and 100metre events and to free up more space in the shallow end of the pool for less confident swimmers.

A council spokesman said: 'This enables people who are less confident to swim lengths of the shallow end to help them get fit and also it makes it easier to see where people are swimming and what they are doing. It's about variety, giving a whole host of swimming options.

'Most people who are training for events don't want to swim 33.3 metres, it doesn't fit in with the distances involved. It's not all about health and safety although it is true it does make it easier, they can use different staffing levels. It's easier for the staff and it's better swimming.'

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.

Probably a lie

[cyber-vandal]

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source of information.

Re:Probably a lie

[funkatron]

Newspapers are not a reliable source of information, they just all happen to write roughly the same fiction.