New by-law bans swimming

Inland paddling
Post Reply
User avatar
blackgold
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:32 pm

New by-law bans swimming

Post by blackgold » Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:51 pm


Jones Chris
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by Jones Chris » Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:06 pm

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!

User avatar
buck197
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Plymouth

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by buck197 » Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:06 pm

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???
Brian Taylor
Paddle Pirates

User avatar
blackgold
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:32 pm

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by blackgold » Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:57 pm

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.

User avatar
TechnoEngineer
Posts: 3328
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 7:47 pm
Location: Berks, Hants, Essex

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by TechnoEngineer » Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:00 pm

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.
XL-Burn-3 / Monstar / Kodiak / My Videos

User avatar
Chalky723
Posts: 842
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:56 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by Chalky723 » Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:09 pm

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
Jackson Nirvana, BMW F650GS...

User avatar
Wildswimmer Pete
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 10:07 pm
Location: Runcorn, Greater Liverpool
Contact:

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by Wildswimmer Pete » Sun Jul 01, 2012 11:22 am

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
Nili illegitimi carborundum

User avatar
Big Henry
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:31 am
Location: North East

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by Big Henry » Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:55 pm

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

twicezero
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:59 am

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by twicezero » Sun Jul 01, 2012 9:01 pm

Wildswimmer Pete wrote: 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

User avatar
Simon
Posts: 980
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:45 pm
Location: Salisbury, Wiltshire
Contact:

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by Simon » Sun Jul 01, 2012 9:24 pm

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

User avatar
Randy Fandango
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 5:10 pm
Location: London/Kent/Somewhere flat and dry

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by Randy Fandango » Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:08 pm

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

User avatar
Wildswimmer Pete
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 10:07 pm
Location: Runcorn, Greater Liverpool
Contact:

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by Wildswimmer Pete » Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:31 pm

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
Nili illegitimi carborundum

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 13648
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 2:14 pm
Location: Dumbarton
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by Jim » Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:30 am

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?

User avatar
TechnoEngineer
Posts: 3328
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 7:47 pm
Location: Berks, Hants, Essex

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by TechnoEngineer » Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:04 pm

The boat race is from Putney bridge to Chiswick Bridge, outside of this proposed "no swimming" zone.
XL-Burn-3 / Monstar / Kodiak / My Videos

User avatar
Adrian Cooper
Posts: 9629
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 2:26 pm
Location: Buckinghamshire
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by Adrian Cooper » Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:44 pm

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

User avatar
Gazza
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2002 3:26 pm

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by Gazza » Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:14 pm

Wildswimmer Pete wrote: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
Posts: 5699
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 2:36 pm
Location: Taunton, Somerset

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by Steve B » Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:41 pm

Simon wrote: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.
Steve Balcombe

User avatar
TechnoEngineer
Posts: 3328
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 7:47 pm
Location: Berks, Hants, Essex

Re: New by-law bans swimming

Post by TechnoEngineer » Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:51 pm

Adrian Cooper wrote: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/
XL-Burn-3 / Monstar / Kodiak / My Videos

Post Reply