Respecting the Sea (on water safety)
Last week there was yet another water sports-related drowning. Levin Angsana of SMU, drowned when he felled overboard the clipper he was commanding. He drowned because he was a weak swimmer not wearing a PFD.
This week, the Water Safety Council, set up after the dragon boat tragedy, proposed plans to make it compulsory for water sports participants to obtain a 'license' before being allowed to take part in water sports. This means anyone not proficient in swimming or water survival will be barred from them.
Will this reduced the number of drownings in water sports?
In Cambodia, all 5 young rowers who drowned were good swimmers. One was even an army commando. Last week Levin's team mate dived in to stayed with him, actually touched him, but could not keep him afloat.
In Levin's situation, a PFD would certainly have gave him precious seconds to think and calm down. He would have seen his team mate jumping after him, and the clipper turning back for him. He would have learned from his survival story.
We pick up water confidence and survival skills this way. These water activities provide an experience of water scape different from swimming pools, or the neighborhood drain. And we learned that water, weather, and our physical responses change all the time.
There are dangers everywhere and all the time. But that doesn't mean we froze or retreat, or alternatively beat them with bravado and careless optimism. We learn to assess risk and hone our judgment.
Survival in the water begins with prevention. If drowning is the biggest beast, wearing a PFD can substantially reduce this risk.
For any water sports novice, wearing a PFD offers the safest environment to learn. In fact, the more experienced ones seek out more safety instead of less. The wisest ones respect the power of the sea.
In both drowning cases, regulations state that PFDs 'are not required'. I don't see the disadvantage of having a 'wear PFD' rule, instead of having a rule which says 'PFDs are not required'.
On some occasions, not wearing PFDs make sense, but this should be a judgment not a rule.
I don't agree we need to obtain a 'water safety' license to do water sports. This will create an entry layer that will discourage passionate participation in water sports. It should however, be a course on offer for those who would like themselves trained.
I think water safety is important, but such awareness come from participating in water sports. Seniors in the sports, the fraternity, and the course syllabus will have to emphasize it and create a culture around it.
Learning about the sea this way is much more practical, fun, effective, and fulfilling.
This week, the Water Safety Council, set up after the dragon boat tragedy, proposed plans to make it compulsory for water sports participants to obtain a 'license' before being allowed to take part in water sports. This means anyone not proficient in swimming or water survival will be barred from them.
Will this reduced the number of drownings in water sports?
In Cambodia, all 5 young rowers who drowned were good swimmers. One was even an army commando. Last week Levin's team mate dived in to stayed with him, actually touched him, but could not keep him afloat.
In Levin's situation, a PFD would certainly have gave him precious seconds to think and calm down. He would have seen his team mate jumping after him, and the clipper turning back for him. He would have learned from his survival story.
We pick up water confidence and survival skills this way. These water activities provide an experience of water scape different from swimming pools, or the neighborhood drain. And we learned that water, weather, and our physical responses change all the time.
There are dangers everywhere and all the time. But that doesn't mean we froze or retreat, or alternatively beat them with bravado and careless optimism. We learn to assess risk and hone our judgment.
Survival in the water begins with prevention. If drowning is the biggest beast, wearing a PFD can substantially reduce this risk.
For any water sports novice, wearing a PFD offers the safest environment to learn. In fact, the more experienced ones seek out more safety instead of less. The wisest ones respect the power of the sea.
In both drowning cases, regulations state that PFDs 'are not required'. I don't see the disadvantage of having a 'wear PFD' rule, instead of having a rule which says 'PFDs are not required'.
On some occasions, not wearing PFDs make sense, but this should be a judgment not a rule.
I don't agree we need to obtain a 'water safety' license to do water sports. This will create an entry layer that will discourage passionate participation in water sports. It should however, be a course on offer for those who would like themselves trained.
I think water safety is important, but such awareness come from participating in water sports. Seniors in the sports, the fraternity, and the course syllabus will have to emphasize it and create a culture around it.
Learning about the sea this way is much more practical, fun, effective, and fulfilling.
Comments
We just had an incident at one of the NYC waterfalls (I posted about it a couple of days ago). The participants got a bit of a scare, as did the guides, but it all came out OK because the organization that ran the tours require all participants to wear lifejackets.
Happy ending - it was all over the papers, but everybody lived to tell the tale.
And maybe in a bit of good, at least one of the articles emphasized that the PFD's may have made all the difference between "embarrassing misadventure" and "tragedy".
Actually most paddlers around here do wear PFD's. With so much boat traffic, there's always a chance of something going wrong. If that something is a motorboat hitting you & you get knocked out cold - the most likely accident scenario in Jamaica Bay, where I do most of my paddling now...
well, you get the drift, right?