Quote:
> Jane and Stephen,
> You would never sign a contract with anyone without reading its content.
> So why then should it be held as acceptable for an Oarsperson choose not
to
> read the Water Safety Code which they are bound by on becoming members of
> the ARA.
> I have yet to read, in my professional life, a health and safety manual
> that
> is either short, simple, or a riveting read.
> As you phrased it oarspersons are "people, who just want to get out and
> enjoy their rowing, and who (as we all
> fundamentally do) trust that accidents happen to other people"
> A flippant and worrying idea.
Our comment was absolutely not "flippant" - it is the truth of how our human
brains work - obviously there is a range of attitude, with extremes at both
ends, but generally speaking what we said is applicable to most people. (I
spend virtually all my work time discussing risk, risk taking and risk
avoidance with individuals and groups of all ages, backgrounds and
intellectual ability). It need not be a "worrying" idea at all - indeed
understanding the generality of human behaviour is an excellent tool to
begin effective communication. Martin Gill's thoughtful posting alludes to
this concept.
Getting the safety message over to the general rowing public is so
important - so if something has been shown over the years not to work, then
don't just keep doing the same thing and expect anything to change. The WSC
desperately needs a complete overhaul.
The starting point is to decide what the aims are, being realistic about
what is achievable. Most rowers do not need to know all the detail in the
Code so separate out those really essential safety bits and concentrate on
these. As Martin says the full litany should be mainly for reference, and
for those with special responsibilities. The key to actually imparting the
chosen message is to accept people generally won't go out of their way much
for this sort of thing - so tap into their existing lifestyle. "Drip feed",
present the message bit by bit, in easily digestible morsels. Post the
message in places where they have to go anyway - at times when they usually
are around. This is nothing new. This is how advertising works isn't it?
>Agreed the participant merely wants to row and to compete and win.
Quote:
> Wilful ignorance still appears to be the name of the game.
> They think they know better so they go out believing their skills,
> and their boats to be sufficient to prevent any accident.
This is too harsh and cynical - though don't blame you for feeling p*****
off.
Quote:
> snip>
> I, likewise, have done resuscitation training as it is a required part of
> the
> coaching awards training.
> The training given by St johns or red cross or any other trainers is based
> on the resuscitation council guidance.That being the recognised body.
> So is the guidance for the water safety code.
> See the following link http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/citizen.htm
> It does indeed recommend that if you are alone you should leave the
patient
> to
> summon help since you cannot stop CPR once started. therefore make
> the call and summon the ambulance first.
If I were to be picky I would point out that the very latest guidance is "
if casualty not breathing then give 2 rescue breaths. THEN assess
circulation for 10 seconds - if absent get help (even if this means leaving
the casualty to go to a phone). The rescue breaths before even checking
circulation is evidence based ie proven to improve outcomes. However my
comment was not so much about what the Code was trying to say, but the way
it says it - that's what I found disconcerting.
A far more important point is why is resuscitation described in the Code at
all? There are already excellent resources - posters, leaflets, booklets,
idiot guides, training packages - all readily available and kept up to date.
The Code needs to encourage people to learn the skill, it doesn't have to
give every detail of the process. No-one will ever learn CPR by reading
what's in the Code.
Quote:
> snip>
> It has to cover a lot of situations so cannot be a one page document. Its
> army of detractors would have a field day if it was.
> In his post, which didn't get attached to this thread, Roger appeals to
keep
> it simple.
> The water code is fairly simple it is just that people don't choose to
read
> it. the message Be safe.
The Code as it is, is muddled and complicated and in pseudo-legallistic
prose. Simple it ain't.
Quote:
> snip>
> The document you have seen is not cast in stone and is being amended
during
> the implementation
> phase through to April next year.
This is interesting as we were told on the 20 July by its author that the
wording of the Code was definitely not going to be changed one bit now it
had been written. So, is this progress??
Quote:
> snip>
> I fail to comprehend your comment in the last paragraph regarding the ARA
> executive. I'm not a member of it but read huge amounts regarding their
> meetings
> and also incidents that occur. despite all that I don't understand what
you
> are driving
> at.
> Mark
Once again, from the top:
1) For several years the ARA did not fulfil its "Duty of Care" (as defined
in the Code 2.7.2.) to "provide guidance and rules which dictate a safe
background to the sport" - as they knew the risks attached to boats without
adequate buoyancy (we have documentary proof of this), and yet did not
inform their members, or regulate on the issue.
2) When Leo was killed by this known, yet undisclosed risk, the ARA did not
apply their risk assessment procedure (2.7.3.) to assess what action to take
to prevent a recurrence.
3) The ARA again failed in its "Duty of Care" (2.7.2.) to "monitor incidents
and accidents to highlight trends, dangerous situations and practices", and
to "provide advice and rule reviews based on its findings".
The ARA did not change any rule or practice of its own accord, until we got
involved. Leo's accident had been so closely examined by the ARA that one
of the first things Tommy Thomson and Rosemary Napp said to us on 27th April
this year (in front of a witness) was that they had not known Leo's boat had
sunk - in spite of having received the accident report in February 2001.
What exactly is it that you don't understand? We'd be happy to explain more
of the sorry tale if you wish, but here we are discussing the Code, and how
the ARA didn't follow it.
Jane and Stephen.