New by-law bans swimming

[blackgold]

Any views
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18658853

[Jones Chris]

Hmmm was bound to happen, it's a busy and dangerous bit of water. Prevents the unprepared masses from hurting themselves but a bit of a shame for those who do know what they're doing.

On a seperate note, anyone know where these whirlpools are that are mentioned? After all the by law says nothing about squirt boating!

[buck197]

Total cr*p from our lords and masters yet again. Yes it may be dangerous to swim in the Thames but it is also dangerous to drive a car (10 people die everyday in road traffic accidents ) and it's dangerous to do plenty of other activities. Do we stop people usinG bridges because someone throws himself of it???

[blackgold]

After all the by law says nothing about squirt boating!

The banning of squirt boating is further up the wedge, hoodies were at the thin edge.

[TechnoEngineer]

From Sunday, a person will need prior written permission to swim anywhere in the Thames between Crossness in east London and Putney Bridge in south-west London.

Pretty reasonable if you ask me.

[Chalky723]

Ah, but wait until someone works out that kayaks aren't too visible & are only marginally longer than a swimmer. They're also at risk of Tides, Currents & "Whirlpools" - you may even find that there have been more kayak/canoe related incidents than swimming ones, which will give these people even more incentive to save us from ourselves.....

C

[Wildswimmer Pete]

Well, I said last year that Walliams was showboating and his attention seeking would undo years of hard work by RALSA. Now we have the inevitable reaction from the Corporate State to both Walliams' and Parris' stupidity.

Personally I wouldn't swim in the tidal Thames, much better in the freshwater river upstream of Teddington. As far as I'm concerned the PLA's chief executive Richard Everett wasn't bothered if swimmers came to grief - he just wanted an excuse to prevent somebody from enjoying a harmless (to everybody else) pastime. Most impoortant, to hear his voice on prime-time national radio. In fact his nice new little law might be unenforceable as there is a right to swim in tidal estuaries. But then of course in the Corporate State, might is right.

I'd love to throw Everett in one of those "swimming pools" at Crossness - he'd be in good company.

Wildswimmer Pete

[Big Henry]

I assumed that this was more a reaction to the bloke who interrupted the boat race.

[twicezero]

In fact his nice new little law might be unenforceable as there is a right to swim in tidal estuaries. But then of course in the Corporate State, might is right.

The Thames through London is a Port and so has its own bylaws and port control via the Port of London Authority.

A number of kayaking groups and interested parties keep in conversation with the PLA so they can understand the port's needs and concerns so hopefully kayaking isn't next... hence this sort of thing: http://www.pla.co.uk/pdfs/maritime/1007 ... _draft.pdf

[Simon]

As someone who has driven boats up and down the tidal Thames, from a canal boat to a Royal Navy Warship, I have some sympathy with the ban. I see it as a bit like the ban on walkers on motorways. Walking and swimming should be legal in the vast majority of places, but a restriction in some very limited cases cases might be arguable on safety grounds.

If you are in a large pleasure vessel with a couple of hundred people on board, and a swimmer gets it wrong and ends up in front of you, what do you do? Take avoiding action and risk piling into a bridge support and putting all your passengers in danger, or carry on, run down the swimmer, and risk a prosecution or a monstering in the press.

I am all for "wild swimming" and have been swimming in the Thames since it was just called swimming, but I am not going to get too exited about this bye-law.

Simon

[Randy Fandango]

From personal experience I can't recommend swimming in the tideway anyway.
Eleven years ago on my birthday I was suddenly seized with the idea that swimming across the river at Greenwich would be great fun.
Four of us jumped in and were (of course) immediately swept off by the tide, luckily making it back to the side a couple of hundred yards downstream.
I was as sick as a dog all night and still suffering from poisoning nearly a week later.



(None of this had anything to do with the fact I'd been drinking since early afternoon and by this point it was nearly midnight...... :-))
Giles

[Wildswimmer Pete]

Forgetting for now Walliams and Parris, how many people actually swim in the section of the Thames under discussion? Personally I know of none. I don't like petty authority making up restrictive legislation for its own ends. As mentioned in a earlier post, once the non-existent "problem" of "phantom swimmers" has been "addressed", the PLA will then move on to finding excuses to ban, say, kayaks - and so on. Once corporate interests get such powers they will never be satisfied, especially when they smell money.

What happens if a kayaker was wearing Speedos (unlikely in the current "summer" but we can hope) and fell out his boat. Would he be immediately arrested for "swimming"?

What about the piss-heads - can't see them taking much notice of Everett's diktat.

To be honest as far I'm concerned the Port of London Authority can stick its collective head up its own arse - I take great care to avoid London, and fortunately I cannot think of any way I'd ever encounter the PLA.

Looks like the 'Elf'n'safety Gestapo are polishing their jackboots in readiness for a concerted attack on wild swimming

I said this on a swimming forum about a month ago. I expected some sort of action but not from the Port of London. Couldn't be a show of authority to impress the Olympic organisers - could it?

Wildswimmer Pete

[Jim]

Whirlpools will be what we call eddy lines.

To be honest, it looks to me like a section of the Thames where a swimming ban is quite a sensible thing due to the traffic, Simon mentioned the problem with passenger boats taking evasive action for a swimmer, they have to see you first. The Marchioness disaster I think was at night in poor visibilty, but if 2 reasonable sized vessels can't miss each other then a nearly invisible swimmer has little hope.

If the bye-law is being introduced as part of harbour control then I think it is perfectly reasonable, if it is a knee jerk reaction as Pete thinks, being loosely disguised as something reasonable, then I would be concerned. In that case there is every possibility that more wild swimmers will go and swim the section in protest, assuming there is a fine if caught I should imagine the court receipts would become collectable within that community....

Also, unless I have the course muddled up, doesn't the boat race work upstream finishing at Putney - so if a boat were to capsize, or they throw the cox in at the end, would they get nicked?

[TechnoEngineer]

The boat race is from Putney bridge to Chiswick Bridge, outside of this proposed "no swimming" zone.

[Adrian Cooper]

The PLA cover the Thames up to Teddington. I wonder what was their reason for stopping this control at Putney.

[Gazza]

I take great care to avoid London

Probably wise. We have gates to protect the gold paved streets from those that hail from the likes of Runcorn.

:-D


Actually I'm not from London and have even escaped (just) the perimeter of the m25, but your apparent loathing tickled me.

[Steve B]

As someone who has driven boats up and down the tidal Thames, from a canal boat to a Royal Navy Warship, I have some sympathy with the ban. I see it as a bit like the ban on walkers on motorways.

Good analogy Simon.

[TechnoEngineer]

The PLA cover the Thames up to Teddington. I wonder what was their reason for stopping this control at Putney.

The speed restrictions are lower above Wandsworth Bridge (8kts vs 12kts):
http://www.pla.co.uk/pdfs/maritime/1205 ... elaws1.pdf
(section 16, P21)

Also the access to the river is far more limited downstream of Putney.

Michal Madera wrote this great piece about paddling safety in the Thames through central London:
http://sixknots.net/2011/09/17/are-we-g ... on-thames/