No lifeguards at Forty Foot?

Qualitymark

I was in the Forty Foot yesterday for around three hours, from fiveish to eightish (the tide having been full at twoish.

Not once did I see a lifeguard.

The sea was full of swimmers - lots of kids (most with parents but some not; one child was roaming around a slippery rock out of sight of any adult with no sign of supervision). Teenagers were bombing down from the high rock into the sea even when the tide was at its lowest. Some were even diving.

One lad came up very pale and shouted up that he'd hit a rock. After that I went over and told the queue about the man who'd become paraplegic a few years ago. A fellow holding a can of beer asked me what that meant, and I said "paralysed for life". They stopped for a bit, then started again.

At the back of the main swimming section, in the sun-blasted white-painted area, an alcohol-fuelled party was going on, with music blasting from speakers.

The banister down into the water is coated with seaweed and slippery on the underside - since people can grab this from any angle as they try to make their way up from the sea through a line of people waiting to go into the water, this is risky.

The place is a disaster waiting to happen - why on earth is this not supervised by lifeguards? There is a drawing on the rock where people were queueing to jump in from a height - a drawing showing that diving and jumping are dangerous at low tide - but it's ignored.

Can someone tell me why there are no lifeguards?

mad m

There is life guards there but they patrol the Sandycove beach area not the forty foot...that's what they are ordered to do.

There is numerous signs also at forty foot to say there is rocks and no jumping afaik.

ted1

It's not suitable to dive off the rocks, having life guards would promote it as a swimming area.

Putting lifeguards on would put responsibilty on the council. It's like strand hill in Sligo , which has no lifeguards.

The beach around the area is patrolled.

Life guards are not baby sitters. I worked as one for over ten years in pools and beaches in both Ireland and America and can tell you this no life guard would want to work there.

Qualitymark

It *is* a swimming area, and is recognised as such. Not having lifeguards there is sheer irresponsibility.

ted1

Having lifeguards would be more irresponsible.

Would you expect a lifeguard to deal with all the people drinking, diving off the rocks etc.

If a lifeguard was to try and do a spinal rescue in those conditions, he'd end up with a law suit.

ted1

How far would the patrol area extend around to sandy cove? Around to colimire harbour ? Out 200ft?

Qualitymark

ted1 wrote: »

Having lifeguards would be more irresponsible.

Would you expect a lifeguard to deal with all the people drinking, diving off the rocks etc.

If a lifeguard was to try and do a spinal rescue in those conditions, he'd end up with a law suit.

Lawsuit? Are you American or something?

ted1

Qualitymark wrote: »

Lawsuit? Are you American or something?

No, I'm Irish. If the casualty dived in and damaged his back, any further damage caused to him during a rescue could result in a claim againest the lifeguard

mad m

Qualitymark wrote: »

It *is* a swimming area, and is recognised as such. Not having lifeguards there is sheer irresponsibility.

If you feel this passionate about it, write a letter to council.

emuhead

ted1 wrote: »

It's not suitable to dive off the rocks, having life guards would promote it as a swimming area.

Putting lifeguards on would put responsibilty on the council. It's like strand hill in Sligo , which has no lifeguards.

The beach around the area is patrolled.

Life guards are not baby sitters. I worked as one for over ten years in pools and beaches in both Ireland and America and can tell you this no life guard would want to work there.

+1 to this

Worked in indoor/outdoor pools and on beaches too. Lifeguards are not bouncers or babysitters. The no diving signs are not put up for decoration. Fair play to you OP for warning people about the hazards but at the end of the day, people must take some personal responsibility.

Qualitymark

This whole "x are not y" concept has grown up in Ireland in recent years and is part of a sense of self-entitlement and lack of responsibility - like teachers who demand extra money to keep watch on the playground (which had been done as a pleasant duty for generations), and lifeguards who resent having to keep an eye out for drowning children, which one would imagine might be an important part of their job.

emuhead

Qualitymark wrote: »

This whole "x are not y" concept has grown up in Ireland in recent years and is part of a sense of self-entitlement and lack of responsibility - like teachers who demand extra money to keep watch on the playground (which had been done as a pleasant duty for generations), and lifeguards who resent having to keep an eye out for drowning children, which one would imagine might be an important part of their job.

OP, if you feel so passionately about this, I suggest you write to your Local Authority about it. I'm not responding to that slur of a comment.

Corkbah

if people took personal responsibility and swam where it was safe to swim there would be no issue.

its beyond belief the sense of entitlement of some people .... Council says its dangerous but I swim there so the council should provide me with someone to try safe me if I get into trouble.... ????

Swim where it is safe and you wont have a problem.

ted1

Qualitymark wrote: »

This whole "x are not y" concept has grown up in Ireland in recent years and is part of a sense of self-entitlement and lack of responsibility - like teachers who demand extra money to keep watch on the playground (which had been done as a pleasant duty for generations), and lifeguards who resent having to keep an eye out for drowning children, which one would imagine might be an important part of their job.

Sorry but your rant is completely wrong. Lifeguards have no trouble watching out for swimmers, its the lads knackerinh drinking, the groups with sound systems disrupting everyone, but mainly the people diving off the rocks were it says not to. Lifeguards have no problem with swimmers.

mad m

I know it's a bit OT, but with lads drinking out there, the mess that's left behind when I was out there last week was unreal. A lady was going around of her own free will picking up after people which she should not have to do.

Qualitymark

mad m wrote: »

I know it's a bit OT, but with lads drinking out there, the mess that's left behind when I was out there last week was unreal. A lady was going around of her own free will picking up after people which she should not have to do.

Yup. Totally different in Seapoint, where several men working for the council were gathering any rubbish in black bags and bringing it away, there were several lifeguards, and a general sense of calm and order - quite different from the stench and cans and plastic bottles and other rubbish at Sandycove and the daredevil lunacy (and litter, and drinking) at the Forty Foot.

Scortho

my understanding of the forty foot is that its a swimming area (streps with a bar into the sea, changing area etc.)
It is not a place to be used by people who are weak swimmers, who cant thread water and dont know when to get out of the water. Neither is it a place to drink (isnt their a fine for drinking in a public place?)
Their should be a lifeguard there alright, as it is a popular swimming place, with people swimming there every day of the year.
However if someone was to get into difficulty, chances are someone there would be able to come to their aid fairly quickly.

JupiterKid

Unfortunately, good weather beings out the element who act the maggot at swimming spots and spoil the atmosphere for everyone else.

I do think that there should be a lifeguard posted at the Forty Foot.

Thoie

You can't provide life guards for every spot along the entire coast of Ireland and every river, lake, canal or puddle that people decide to swim/jump/dive at.

The council provides life guards at specific spots. If people want the "use" of a life guard, go to them. If you decide to swim anywhere else, then you do so at your own risk.

Rented Mule

ted1 wrote: »

Having lifeguards would be more irresponsible.

Would you expect a lifeguard to deal with all the people drinking, diving off the rocks etc.

If a lifeguard was to try and do a spinal rescue in those conditions, he'd end up with a law suit.

I think you're going to open yourself for legal action by patrolling areas like this. The idea that just because there is a lifeguard is there that the area is 'safe' is a misnomer.

I was an open water lifeguard for many years. There are some places that are just not patrolled for a variety of reason. They are usually the places that people tend to turn into the 'party areas'. They are generally, the more dangerous locations as well. I have been on quite a few 'jumps' and body recovery lines in these locations.

The one thing that people have to understand is that we're talking about lifeguards, not bouncers. If anything, this is more of a job for the gardai.

Alcohol and stupidity tend to go hand in hand when it comes to hot weather and water. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. Lifeguards can't undo the actions of they have already happened.

Qualitymark wrote: »

Lawsuit? Are you American or something?

I am. Have you got a problem with that ?

Ireland is becoming quite the litigious society on it's own lately. If there is a chance at a payday, don't think that someone isn't going to take a chance and get it.

ted1 wrote: »

No, I'm Irish. If the casualty dived in and damaged his back, any further damage caused to him during a rescue could result in a claim againest the lifeguard

Again, one of the issues with patrolling an area is the idea that it is supposedly 'safe'. If people are drinking/diving in the water (at low tide) that is marked as dangerous/rocky, you had better take into account the safety/well being of the lifeguards. They are the ones that are going to have to deal with these situations/locations

Qualitymark

Oddly, people in Ireland don't tend to sue those who try to save their lives.

Of course the gardaí should have been there too.

But there should be lifeguards, and there should be lifebelts.

ted1

Qualitymark wrote: »

Oddly, people in Ireland don't tend to sue those who try to save their lives.

Of course the gardaí should have been there too.

But there should be lifeguards, and there should be lifebelts.

I persum thats you opinion rather than fact.

Myself and other qualified and experienced lifeguards have given you valid reasons why there is no life guard. but yet you continue, there is no getting through to you.

what about other popular places such as, White Rock, Hawk cliff should they be patrolled?

if you want to swim in a patrolled area then go to Seapoint/Salthill, Sandycove or Killiney.

has there been any drownings in the 40 foot?
if there was lifeguards would parents think its suitael for kids?
did you know that to achieve the blue flag, you don't actually need lifeguards?

listermint

Qualitymark wrote: »

Oddly, people in Ireland don't tend to sue those who try to save their lives.

Of course the gardaí should have been there too.

But there should be lifeguards, and there should be lifebelts.

ROFL

So far you've shown in this thread to give nothing but opinion and scant fact.


Should there be life guards on all the peers around dublin ? Perhaps in the Liffey too ? Grand Canal ? All these places have steps into water with handrails. So by the definition based in this thread they are swimming spots.

get a grip

edanto

@qualitymark, fair play to you for saying something to those kids that were jumping dangerously.

Do you understand now why there are no lifeguards? It's a sensible call not to put lifeguards there - what would they be in charge of, selecting which people can jump off the rocks and from which height and which people couldn't? It would be a recipe for disaster.

Personal responsibility is, unfortunately, the only answer. Those jumpers have ignored the signs, ignored the low tide and are swimming with drink on them. There's nothing else anyone can do only say something to them.

If they're putting other people at risk, by all means call the Garda (discreetly obviously), but the state is not a nanny/parent and if people do stupid things they might end up hurt. That would be a shame, but no fault of the council.

Qualitymark

Thanks, @edanto.

What I'd do:

1) institute lifeguards.

2) Paint a low tide mark on the rocks to show what level it's dangerous to jump at.

3) Put up newspaper articles, printed on enamel so they remain permanently, about the people who have been injured badly by jumping and diving there.

4) Have regular garda patrols.

5) Ban all alcohol from the site, and enforce the ban. There are places for alcohol; this isn't one of them.

6) Have a cleaning staff, as in Seapoint.

7) Have a public toilet. There is a disgusting little urinal already, but nowhere for women or small kids to relieve themselves.

8) Have regular information sessions about the conditions - the tides, where the rocks are, the current that changes direction on ebbing and rising tide, what swims are safe and what not, etc.

9) Also post this information up at the site, with clear maps, and renew the information.

ted1

Qualitymark wrote: »

Thanks, @edanto.

What I'd do:

1) institute lifeguards.

2) Paint a low tide mark on the rocks to show what level it's dangerous to jump at. you really think its only low tide thats dangerous ?

3) Put up newspaper articles, printed on enamel so they remain permanently, about the people who have been injured badly by jumping and diving there. You really think people will read them ?

4) Have regular garda patrols. you really think the Gardai have the man power?

5) Ban all alcohol from the site, and enforce the ban. There are places for alcohol; this isn't one of them. you really think you could enforce this ban, remember the recent fight with the stabbings? good luck to you

6) Have a cleaning staff, as in Seapoint.

7) Have a public toilet. There is a disgusting little urinal already, but nowhere for women or small kids to relieve themselves. theres one about 50m away

8) Have regular information sessions about the conditions - the tides, where the rocks are, the current that changes direction on ebbing and rising tide, what swims are safe and what not, etc. those who don't need to listen will, thost that do need to listen won't

9) Also post this information up at the site, with clear maps, and renew the information.those who don't need to look will, those that do need to look won't

this remains off the episode of the Simpsons when Homer ran the city bin department.

how do you propose to pay for the above?

Just stick to Seapoint.....

Qualitymark

ted1 wrote: »

this remains off the episode of the Simpsons when Homer ran the city bin department.

how do you propose to pay for the above?

Just stick to Seapoint.....

Ah, the old it's-all-about-money Irish attitude.

edanto

Nah, it's not all about money, but the cost of what you've proposed is one reason not to go for it.

For me, the main reason not to put lifeguards there is because they would be utterly useless.

A lifeguard could not decide who would be permitted to jump off the rocks, from what height and at what tide levels. That would be impossible, and only lead to conflict.

Equally, a lifeguard could not sit idly by if people were jumping in dangerously, they would have to do/say something, leading to the problem above.

Or would the lifeguards just wait for someone to hit their head and then enter the water to remove them on a spineboard? It's just not practical.

Some of the other suggestions have flaws. The painted line is risky. Would the entity that paints the line (council) become liable if someone injures themselves when diving while the water was above the line?

Alcohol is already banned and there are toilet facilities nearby.

Perhaps a change to the 'no diving' sign would be appropriate. Something like 'Caution: Diving here can result in spinal injury or death' At least that sign wouldn't be as completely useless as the no diving sign.

Mainly though, it comes down to people being responsible.

Our limited lifeguard supply should be focussed on beach type sites where there are families/mixed ages swimming in a flagged area and the lifeguard has an ability to respond to tiredness/cramp/heart attack. Deploying a lifeguard at 40 foot would only cause problems and remove cover elsewhere.

Qualitymark

Edanto, the Forty Foot is something like 30 feet deep (counter-namingly enough) at high tide, and afaik it's not unsafe to jump or dive then, though I'm open to correction. The problem comes when the tide goes out - some local effect means that low tide is way lower than high tide here, and people are jumping from a much greater height into water with hidden rocks.

There is a toilet, about 10 minutes' walk away if you happen to know where it is. It costs 50c to use. This isn't what I mean by public toilet facilities.

The arguments against lifeguards could just as easily be made in any public place, but aren't.

And are there lifebelts at the Forty Foot? I haven't noticed any, but maybe I'm just unobservant.

cjt156

Qualitymark wrote: »

There is a toilet, about 10 minutes' walk away if you happen to know where it is. It costs 50c to use. This isn't what I mean by public toilet facilities.

The toilet is 200 meters away, on Sandycove Avenue. The roads here are all one way so most people will pass it to get to the 40ft. And its the very definition of public toilet facilities.

RossieMan

OP, you keep saying stuff like "its the old irish attitude".

Mind me asking where you're from?

Qualitymark

RossieMan wrote: »

OP, you keep saying stuff like "its the old irish attitude".

Mind me asking where you're from?

I do not. I'm from Dublin, brought up between Dublin, Tipperary and the Aran Islands. I love Ireland, but there are certain lazy Irish thought habits that irritate me.

paulmorro

Qualitymark wrote: »

but there are certain lazy Irish thought habits that irritate me.

... Like the one where some Irish prople look for someone else to blame instead of advocating personal responsibility?

Qualitymark

paulmorro wrote: »

... instead of advocating personal responsibility?

Eh?

ted1

Qualitymark wrote: »

Edanto, the Forty Foot is something like 30 feet deep (counter-namingly enough) at high tide, and afaik it's not unsafe to jump or dive then, though I'm open to correction.

The name has nothing to do with the depth of the water, it got its name from the army battillion that were based there.

depends on what direction you dive and from where you dive determines if its safe. so it is not entirely safe to dive at high tide.

Qualitymark

ted1 wrote: »

The name has nothing to do with the depth of the water, it got its name from the army battillion that were based there.

depends on what direction you dive and from where you dive determines if its safe. so it is not entirely safe to dive at high tide.

There was no battalion called the Forty Foot or any similar name. This is an urban legend.

As for Irish lazythink, I so admired the Irish of the Celtic Tiger era, when it was the norm for kids to go and do voluntary work in developing countries for a year between school and college. For some reason this has disappeared now.

mad m

C'mon lads, we can debate this all we want. There is no life guards stationed at the forty foot or probably foreseeable future.

This is down to the county council. Write the letter and see if you get a response.

RossieMan

Qualitymark wrote: »

There was no battalion called the Forty Foot or any similar name. This is an urban legend.

As for Irish lazythink, I so admired the Irish of the Celtic Tiger era, when it was the norm for kids to go and do voluntary work in developing countries for a year between school and college. For some reason this has disappeared now.

having done work experience for free for 4 months for my college course, its no craic. That's why people don't do it.

studiorat

Qualitymark wrote: »

It *is* a swimming area, and is recognised as such. Not having lifeguards there is sheer irresponsibility.

Country's in an awful state altogether. :rolleyes:



Charge people €10 to get into the place. Problem solved, cleaning staff and lifeguard paid for.


What are the Sandycove Bathers Association at these days anyway? They pay for maintenance, CCTV cameras and all the rest.
Does the 40foot swimming club have a lifeguard when they use it?

studiorat

Qualitymark wrote: »

There was no battalion called the Forty Foot or any similar name. This is an urban legend.

As for Irish lazythink,

The 40th Foot Regiment were a British Infantry regiment founded in 1717 in Canada. Also known as the 2nd Sommersetshire, the 40th Foot were frequent visitors to Ireland during the 18th and 19th centuries, tours of duty spanning the on and off from years 1764 to 1872.

Their records show that the Battallion was frequently split up when stationed in Ireland. They could easliy have been stationed at the garrison in Sandycove that is the Sandycove Martello tower or Battery no 12, the location of the baths. According to the autobiography of Sergeant William Lawrence from the 40th Foot they were indeed stationed during 1804 - 11805 supposedly when the towers were being built.

Looks like a "lazythink" urban legend to me.

AngryHippie

mad m wrote: »

C'mon lads, we can debate this all we want. There is no life guards stationed at the forty foot or probably foreseeable future.

This is down to the county council. Write the letter and see if you get a response.

I'm pretty sure there will not be lifegaurds stationed there either.

As a swimming spot, Its relatively safe, but once you start jumping off the rocks, there is nothing safe about it.
Factor in alcohol, teenagers, and stupidity and its a matter of time before someone is paralysed or drowns.

For the Council to station a lifeguard, they are effectively indicating that it is a save place for bathing and other activities there. The poor unfortunate that gets sent their will have a duty of care to recover whatever clown gives him/herself a spinal jumping off the rocks half-cut. Then when they get sued, they can turn around and sue the council for sending them into a hazardous unmanageable work-place. (Council has a duty of care to its employees). It would be a completely and utterly stupid course of action on the council's behalf to put someone there. Regardless of how you feel about it. Look at the commercial and legal reality. I've worked as a lifeguard, Swim instructor, OHS rep etc. both in Ireland and overseas and I can tell you right now, there is no way council will provide such a service.

There are enough safe locations close by that they can effectively control and manage safely while fulfilling their brief of providing safe patrolled beaches.

Just because the 40ft is good fun, doesn't mean that council should expose themselves and their employees to probable litigation to prevent a few idiots from getting hurt. IF they take the risks, they suffer the consequences. The sooner Irish society faces up to the reality of cause and effect the better imo. Across the board.

studiorat

Qualitymark wrote: »

This whole "x are not y" concept has grown up in Ireland in recent years and is part of a sense of self-entitlement and lack of responsibility -

The self entitlement even goes to expect lifeguards in every pool of water around the country!!

If you want lifeguards watching over you go swim somewhere else. If you are a responsible adult, swim in the 40ft and take some responsibility for yourself.

Qualitymark

studiorat wrote: »

The 40th Foot Regiment were a British Infantry regiment founded in 1717 in Canada. Also known as the 2nd Sommersetshire, the 40th Foot were frequent visitors to Ireland during the 18th and 19th centuries, tours of duty spanning the on and off from years 1764 to 1872.

Their records show that the Battallion was frequently split up when stationed in Ireland. They could easliy have been stationed at the garrison in Sandycove that is the Sandycove Martello tower or Battery no 12, the location of the baths. According to the autobiography of Sergeant William Lawrence from the 40th Foot they were indeed stationed during 1804 - 11805 supposedly when the towers were being built.

Looks like a "lazythink" urban legend to me.

I stand corrected. I'd been told that there was no record whatsoever of any such regiment.

What is it with all the nasty, insulting terms here? I'm stopping following this thread at this stage, tired of the sour attitudes evinced.