13 year old non swimmer drowns

[b0atman]

At home!

no swimming at my school learnt with the sea scouts and by parents and in council swimming pools with instructors.

[zenataomm]

I recall some time in the late 60s or early 70s a child drowning in the cut somewhere near Wolverhampton during the Summer holidays.

Parents of the tragic child rallied others from the same housing estate through which the canal ran to run a petition and protest in a march to London to have the canal filled in.

I seem to recall Downing Street redirected them to The Ministry of Transport whom politely informed them (on the doorstep) that canals were permitted by an act of Parliament, and as such would require another act of Parliament to dispose of them.

 

It was also pointed out to them that if the environment nearby to their house was as dangerous as they claimed, why hadn't they educated their children to the same standard of awareness that they had?

Likewise if they didn't know where their children went to when playing, why not?

 

These days we are more polite when pointing out the bleedin' obvious which often results in a lack of understanding that responsibility starts at home.

[pophops]

I very nearly drowned at the age of 5 when I fell into a settlement pond and had to be pulled out by older children. I think it's as a result of this that I have never learned to swim despite many attempts.

Then I bought a boat.

How daft am I?

[Greylady2]

At home!

Yer and their. Lol

[mross]

How daft am I?

Medium!

[Stilllearning]

I very nearly drowned at the age of 5 when I fell into a settlement pond and had to be pulled out by older children. I think it's as a result of this that I have never learned to swim despite many attempts.

Then I bought a boat.

How daft am I?[/quote

 

Before I answer your question, one of my own first : do you wear a life jacket whilst boating?

[Neil2]

I'm normally pretty laissez faire on these things, I mean, I grew up in an age when as kids we played with knives, air guns, catapults etc. and had a lot more freedom I think than youngsters of today.

 

But on this occasion I wonder. I suspect there's a widespread belief that canals are relatively safe, being generally quite shallow and having no current. It wouldn't surprise me if most non- canal folk didn't realise how deep the water is in a typical lock, -even an empty one - and certainly children have no reason to think the water level is any different from that along the cut itself.

 

So I find myself thinking it might not be a bad idea to indicate that locks hold deep water, but does that then mean every lock in a flight must carry such a warning? It seems over the top to us, but as the canals become more and more of a "leisure park" for general public use, it's a question I think we should consider.

 

 

[mross]

I don't think he drowned in a lock. They used the lock to lower the pound and help locate the body.

[WotEver]

I don't think he drowned in a lock. They used the lock to lower the pound and help locate the body.

I believe you're absolutely correct.

[Iain_S]

Although it does state that he climbed down a ladder when the water was a foot or so below the "bank". The 9 ft quoted may be a misquote for "9 feet away from the bank", which would be consistent with a lock.

 

Very sad incident, but if we say there should be a sign warning of the danger, where do we stop? A sign every 10 metres or so along every canal (and road) in the country?

[Jerra]

I suspect there's a widespread belief that canals are relatively safe, being generally quite shallow and having no current. It wouldn't surprise me if most non- canal folk didn't realise how deep the water is in a typical lock, -even an empty one - and certainly children have no reason to think the water level is any different from that along the cut itself.

Do you honestly think local kids who play round the canal have never seen a boat go through a lock? To me that is the only way they wouldn't realise it was deep.

[Alan de Enfield]

Although it does state that he climbed down a ladder when the water was a foot or so below the "bank". The 9 ft quoted may be a misquote for "9 feet away from the bank", which would be consistent with a lock.

 

Very sad incident, but if we say there should be a sign warning of the danger, where do we stop? A sign every 10 metres or so along every canal (and road) in the country?

 

The unfenced ditches alongside the roads (in our area) are huge - we frequently have cars (somehow) ending up, upside down in them and you can barely see the wheels.

Even worse are the 'drains' which normally have several feet of water in them.

 

Most of the 'fenland folk' are aware of the dangers, it tends to be the 'visiting-yoof' that have problems negotiating the bends in the dark (no street lights ya-know)

[Neil2]

According to the BBC, he was found in a lock.

 

Having said that, all the press reports are remarkably unspecific.

 

But the Rochdale canal is not known for being particularly deep, quite the reverse.

 

Do you honestly think local kids who play round the canal have never seen a boat go through a lock? To me that is the only way they wouldn't realise it was deep.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying there, but remember this is the Rochdale canal on the Manchester side, not the South Oxford ie boats will be a rare sight.

[Machpoint005]

>> There is constant pressure for railtrack to put footpath bridges over the tracks rather than allowing people to walk across as it is 'so dangerous' to cross the tracks. Actually it is a lot easier and safer to cross the tracks than crossing just about any road. <<

 

Sorry, got to take issue with that. There aren't many roads where the oncoming vehicle is going at 125mph.

Whatever happened to those wonderful Public Information Films on the box?

>> Having said that, all the press reports are remarkably unspecific.<<.

 

Which half of press reports are we talking about -- the 50% that can't be believed, or the 50% that can?

Do you honestly think local kids who play round the canal have never seen a boat go through a lock? To me that is the only way they wouldn't realise it was deep.

 

I don't think some of them would necessarily put two and two together as readily as you would expect, but perhaps I'm unduly cynical?

[Sanddancer]

Brought up in the north east the beach was our playground, we all new of the dangers of the sea the same as climbing the cliffs or trees we new the risks and still survived. The trouble is now all is a blame society and not our fault let kids be free and explore danger get them away from the TV and PC.

There is too many signs less would be better

[Pluto]

I very nearly drowned at the age of 5 when I fell into a settlement pond and had to be pulled out by older children. I think it's as a result of this that I have never learned to swim despite many attempts.

Then I bought a boat.

How daft am I?

A similar thing happened to me, with the same result - both never learning to swim and lownng on a boat. It does suggest that you don't need to swim, just to realise the dangers.

[NilesMI]

 

Sorry, got to take issue with that. There aren't many roads where the oncoming vehicle is going at 125mph.

 

 

On the other hand where footpaths/bridleways cross the railway, users have to be given adequate warning of approaching trains to able them to cross safely. Where line of sight and speed of trains is not sufficient that means provision of warning lights, audible warnings or telephones to call the signalman to get permission to cross. Also, footpath/bridleway crossings are protected by gates or stiles and have warning signs and instruction notices posted. There aren't many pedestrian road crossings (as opposed to signalled pedestrian crossings) which would meet those standards.

[Mrs Trackman]

Oh for goodness sake. I find the anti child and parent tone of the forum deplorable. Total lack of understanding of just how hard and expensive raising children includung teaching a child to swim can be. And please don't post, they shouldn't have them if they can't afford them. And don't post how little you had but you made sure your child could swim.

That poor boy, trying desperately to keep up with his mates.

[mross]

Please don't tell me not to post my opinion when you have just posted yours!

[Athy]

I find the anti child and parent tone of the forum deplorable.

I can't find it at all.

[WotEver]

I can't find it at all.

Nope, I've been looking and I failed too.

[dmr]

There are a number of popular swimming spots on the canal system so it would be relatively easy to identify and sign these, but this has other problems. The only logical sign is "No Swimming" and this would be ignored, in fact it might even make things worse by increasing an anti-authority attitude in some children and making them less likely to get help when things go wrong. Anything other than "No Swimming", such as a list of dangers, is potentially saying that swimming is ok as long as you take care. Also signing some locations could even be interpreted as inferring that its ok to swim at other locations. This is rather like the "pedestrian priority" signs on same stretches, suggesting to cyclists that they have priority elsewhere.

Education is the answer but its really up to schools to provide this, though maybe CaRT could get some funding to help with this and promote correct use of the canals at the same time?

We have met a fair few groups of kids swimming in the canal and they are clueless. They have no notion of the dangers of sharing a lock with a boat and we met one with a significant leg injury who was genuinely surprised and worried when he told him about the risks of "rat wee disease".

 

.............Dave

[Jerra]

but its really up to schools to provide this,

 

Which part of the national curriculum covers this? It is the parents job to teach their offspring about the realities and dangers of life. To try to pass the buck to the schools every time something needs "got over" to kids is a cop out. To me it is yet another step in the parents stepping back from their responsibilities and expecting others to bring up their kids for them.

 

I was once harangued in a pub by a parent because his 7 year old din't know what a fire shovel was along with the quote "I don't know what they teach them these days".

[pearley]

I very nearly drowned at the age of 5 when I fell into a settlement pond and had to be pulled out by older children. I think it's as a result of this that I have never learned to swim despite many attempts.

Then I bought a boat.

How daft am I?

I can't swim either. And I was a Sea Scout!

 

From recollection every lock on the Nene and Great Ouse has a No Swimming sign but we've met plenty of children ignoring them.

Edited November 24, 2016 by pearley

[Phil.]

Which part of the national curriculum covers this? It is the parents job to teach their offspring about the realities and dangers of life. To try to pass the buck to the schools every time something needs "got over" to kids is a cop out. To me it is yet another step in the parents stepping back from their responsibilities and expecting others to bring up their kids for them.

 

I was once harangued in a pub by a parent because his 7 year old din't know what a fire shovel was along with the quote "I don't know what they teach them these days".

I couldn't agree more. It's about time parents who fail their children faced up to the fact it is/was their failure and not wider society. The problem is far too many are happy to breed away, then abdicate themselves of the responsibility to ensure their offspring are properly equipped for life.