Re: New ARA safety "advice"
- From: "Stephen and Jane" <stephenDOTblockley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 03:13:34 -0000
http://www.ara-rowing.org/watersafety/rowsafe
We've skimmed the 53 pages and it is a curate's egg.
Sir Steve says "...safety is not something that should curtail what we can
do". No one ever said that it should.
- On the contrary, a good safety system enhances the sport by addressing the
hazards which curtail and detract from what we can do.
The introduction states that no book of rules can possibly cover all
situations. No one ever said that it could.
- But a brief, core of basic rules and enforceable, testable standards can
provide practical and effective default safety measures for equipment, and a
basic minimum framework for education and training, and practice. Rules can
be enforced. Guidance and recommendations can't be. Think of safety belts
in cars - for years we were all given advice and guidance to do our own risk
assessments and belt up - some did, but many didn't. Once it became law and
therefore enforceable, most of us did "clunk click every trip" and it became
a habit. That habit has been passed down the generations. There are always
dissenters, but making the rule enforceable promoted large scale positive
behaviour change in a majority of the population - in a way that years of
guidance did not.
RowSafe is more readable than the old Water Safety Code, but is too long,
too repetitive and too complex to be an effective communication. It would
fit better as reference material to back up a simple set of clear, essential
safety rules. Of itself, it fails to make clear the safety "bottom line".
There is no simple check list; no easy reference. There are technical
inaccuracies and ommissions.
There is confusion, and confusing contradictions:
They said it doesn't contain any 'rules' - but much of it is phrased thus:
'this must be done" or "so and so must do this". Most of the rest in
instructional form - "do this, do that". What exactly is its status?
'Minimum Standards' are described, followed by 'Further good practice' - so
what is the difference? Are both optional? Is the latter more optional
than the former? Some of the stuff listed as 'further good practice' seems
pretty basic and essential to us.
For example: Sikander Farooq, a junior beginner, did not have a log book of
his experience and training - so the coach on his fatal outing was unaware
just how inexperienced he was. Peter Bedford recommended that all
beginners/juniors should have a log book, and stated "I consider one of the
important elements of the evidence I heard at the Inquest was in relation to
the lack of any obligation on clubs/coaches to maintain a written log
setting out the competence and experience of jubior/novice rowers. In the
circumstances of Sikander's death this would have allowed (the coach) to
review Sikander's experience and make an informed decision as to whether or
not he should have gone out in a single scull". So the Coroner identified
this as a key factor in Sikander's death. What does the ARA do? Relegate
it to the the list of apparently optional, add-on possibilities.
The "guidance" on who should wear a PFD and when, is not much clearer than
that in the old WSC which Mr Bedford criticised as "half-hearted". He
suggested that it be made clear and "reinforced strongly". The new
guidance, which has to be teased out from several different sections, seems
to largely consist of the advice that clubs make up their own rules.
Those are not the only Coroner's recommendations to be ignored. In our
son's case, John Pollard identified boat buoyancy as being a key factor in
Leo's death - stating in his Full Judgement that he accepted that "had full
buoyancy been available in the boat in which Leo was rowing then it is fair
to assume that the boat would not have capsized (swamped and sunk) and more
importantly the crew would not have found themselves in the water where the
effects of very cold water are rapid and catastrophic." His Rule 43 letter
contained the recommendation that a rule should be introduced "whereby ALL
boats should comply with the full buoyancy provision (the FISA rule was
discussed and accepted in court) by a certain date with a reasonably long
lead-in time to enable clubs to alter, amend or re-equip".
In the RowSafe document, the only reference to addressing buoyancy of the
existing fleet is in the apparently optional,
if-you-feel-like-it-and-can-be-arsed 'further good practice' section. It
here says "boats with insufficient inherent buoyancy for a swamping
situation should be identified and marked accordingly by the club and unless
extra buoyancy is added, its use restricted to situations where the risk of
swamping is low". But the swamping of a non-buoyant four or eight in the UK
climate results in the high risk cold water immersion of the crew. A low
risk of a high risk event should be addressed if it is reasonably practical
to do so, and the cost of doing something about it balanced against the cost
of not doing something. A programme of retro-fitting buoyancy is
achievable, relatively cheap, and would release such boats from (to
paraphrase Sir Steve) having their use curtailed.
And there is much confusion regarding the issue of buoyancy of new boats.
The ARA's (poorly defined) "minimum standard" is there, and is different to
the FISA (well defined and measurable) standard. Boat manufacturers can
choose one or the other, or even neither. Buyers of boats "must" insist
that the boat is plated accordingly. The subject of testing (by anyone)
doesn't get a mention.
Thus, not only does the ARA ignore Coroners' recommendations, but it has
also ignored the whole of the section on equipment (9.3) of the RoSPA Safety
Review - not a single one of those recommendations has been addressed.
Very good fodder for the courts in any future case, eh? The public pays for
a government commissioned review into rowing safety, carried out by
recognised safety experts and informed by recognised boat safety experts,
and the ARA ignores key findings - great!
The negatives go on... but here is something positive:
- The document does strongly indicate that safety is an issue for
veryone - and we hope that it will help encourage the spread of a culture
of safety to every corner of the sport.
- The idea of division of 'responsibilities' for each subject into
'personal', 'club', 'coach' etc is good - but it doesn't quite deliver.
Putting all the 'personal' sections together, you end up with what amounts
mostly to a list of "follow standard x, comply with plan y, read and
understand document z etc".
Overall, the 53 pages are full of fine aspirational words, but the document
is naive. By its own definition its contents are on a "take it or leave it"
basis. As we said before - anyone who knows anything about human behaviour
understands that without any compulsion, most will intend to "take it", but,
in practice, many will "leave it". The heavy reliance on individual and
club risk assessment is an ideal, but it won't work. In practice, most
people are crap at risk assessment most of the time - even when they know
all there is to know about the risks, and how to avoid them. We are
emotional, illogical creatures - just as Mr Spock often said to Jim. In
the melee of our day to day business we are rarely capable of the required
cool, calm, and logical approach - which needs to be ruthlessly detached
from our prevailing desires. And, what is even worse, we are quite capable
of kidding ourselves that we are. Risk assessment has an important place,
but can only complement a basic framework of key enforceable rules and
equipment standards.
This is another missed opportunity - it takes a long time to say very little
of great impact. It is long on words, but short on information.
Are we any further on? A little, but not nearly enough.
Jane and Stephen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: New ARA safety "advice"
- From: Charles Carroll
- Re: New ARA safety "advice"
- From: Richard Packer
- Re: New ARA safety "advice"
- References:
- New ARA safety "advice"
- From: Stephen and Jane
- Re: New ARA safety "advice"
- From: David Biddulph
- New ARA safety "advice"
- Prev by Date: Re: New ARA safety "advice"
- Next by Date: Re: New ARA safety "advice"
- Previous by thread: Re: New ARA safety "advice"
- Next by thread: Re: New ARA safety "advice"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
