Quote:
>> > *sob* and the river's 12" higher than normal here at the moment too -
>> > http://www.ourcs.org/regular/flag.html - has a plot of river height
>above
>> > normal on it, and from what I recall, when it doesn't rain, it falls ~2"
>a
>> > day, until it gets to 6" (which is apparently when Iffley sluices are
>still
>> > fully open), then if the level's still falling the sluices may start to
>be
>> > closed, red boards coming down a day or so later?
>> That's so tame compared to how it was a few years ago. In order not to
>> get my feet wet I had to clamber over a chair to get onto the stairs up
>> to Queens/Lincoln boathouse balcony.
>> It was tough in them days etc.
>> Jon
>Well, yes, I know - compared to my first year it's tame (40+" above normal
>at one point...) but the fact of the matter is the river's been red-flagged
>for over a week already, and shows no sign of coming back down in the next 5
>days :-( Damn sluices. Just close them, and flood places upstream of
>Oxford, simple solution ;-)
Ummm. Not the socially-responsible rower speaking there ;^)
But you do know, don't you, why the river is red-boarded?
It is not because of the dangers of rowing in water flowing a bit, or
even a lot, faster than usual. Any competent crew or sculler can handle
that situation perfectly well. UK rowing insurers have no problem with
competent crews rowing during red board periods - *after a properly-made
risk assessment* which, having taken account of conditions, equipment &
abilities, judges that the crew can handle the conditions safely and is
aware of the areas of the river to avoid. But, AFAIK, the ARA prefers
for its own reasons not to disseminate that agreed position. So, many
non-tidal Thames clubs still think red boards forbid rowing. Not so.
This is the real reason for red boarding:
At risk of getting boring (which I accept), just cast your mind a few
days back - to the weekend's tragic event at Culham, with the 12-year-
old in all probability going through those sluices to his death.
Why should the sluices kill? Because the recirculating maelstrom which
forms behind the seemingly smooth & benign upstream face of each sluice
gate entraps & then beats the hell out of any human body or any other
buoyant object. That is assuming that the person is not either
decapitated or bludgeoned to death by passing under the skimming or
submerged lower edge of the rising-sector sluice gate.
Anything even slightly less dense than water is entrapped in the rolling
vortices formed by the anti-scour geometry of the sluice outlet,
sometimes for many days. It is sucked back & dashed repeatedly against
the walls & bottom of the sluice outlet, & the back of the gate, every
few seconds until, by chance or through alteration of flow, it is blown
downstream.
But, you may say, such a dangerous device should be provided with
efficient guards. After all, the river is a public navigation & its
towpath is a public thoroughfare. You wouldn't be allowed to leave an
unguarded hole, let alone a huge & unguarded mincing machine with intake
open & motor running, in the middle of a public highway, would you? Of
course not!
But the management of the Thames, having installed these deadly but
functionally most efficient devices at about 3-mile intervals along the
Thames, and knowing that they kill, & kill regularly, refuses point-
blank to make them safer.
They could be provided with effective boom-guards which would give
inadvertent swimmers a good chance of escape (think Henley booms).
These guards would have a good chance of preventing crewed shells & all
other classes of boat from being sucked into the sluices (viz. Durham
Univ. women's eight at Hambledon a couple of years back - which was cut
in half by a solitary 'guard post', although they were all rescued by
the fortuitously prompt action of river staff before reaching the
sluices). And they would provide a safe platform until rescue could
come.
It is an oddity that just a very few Thames sluices do have these booms.
But not the rest. Not, for example, Penton Hook, near Staines, where 3
members of the local club went through & died 30 years ago. The stroke
of that crew was killed but, still seated in the boat, passed the cox by
up to people above him on the sluice bridge just as he was being swept
into the sluice. Nor at the huge Romney sluices, below Windsor bridge,
where a kayaker was killed 10 years ago & many others have also died.
But at Bell Weir sluices, Runnymede, they have a cheese-cutter 1"-thick
bar right across the river just above the sluices, held at surface-
skimming level by a system of buoys sliding on rods attached to guard-
posts. That would probably kill a swimmer who hit it in a 4-kt stream &
would destroy a shell, but may keep any bigger boats it doesn't actually
sink from entering the sluices.
The excuses offered for refusal to attend to this glaring & IMO illegal
situation are many, various & ridiculous, & both current & past river
management have refused to discuss any of the issues.
The fall-back position of the Environment Agency, & its predecessors,
doubtless concerned that they might be sued, has increasingly been to
red-board the river whenever there is any kind of a flow. And that, as
we saw this weekend and on many previous occasions, is of no possible
relevance or use to walkers, fishers & anyone who never though anyone
would litter a man-maintained river with huge death-traps. Note here
that the original BBC report said that the condition of the towpath made
it unsafe to continue searching for the lost boy after dark.
As I said before, the ARA (& the British Canoe Union), both of which
have lost members in these sluices, frankly don't give a damn. The ARA
won't even publish the report it supposedly prepared on the Hambledon
accident, which so nearly killed crew, coach & 2 rescuers. Yet another
example of holding office being far more important to officials than
serving the members' interests.
Carl
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)