Finally some help for the Lifeguards ?

[roy_nexus_6]

Saved by a computer lifeguard

Drowning girl is spotted on bottom of pool by new high-tech system that watches over swimmers
A YOUNG girl has been saved from drowning by an extraordinary computer system that keeps an eye on everybody in a swimming pool.

The girl was pulled unconscious from 12ft of water at the deep end of a public pool in Bangor, North Wales, when underwater cameras spotted that she was not moving and alerted a lifeguard. The lifeguard could not see the girl in the crowded pool but was able to respond to the alert within seconds.

It is the first time in Britain that the Poseidon surveillance system, manufactured by a French company, has helped lifeguards to save a swimmer from drowning. The campaign group Swimsafekids said last night that the rescue proved that the system could save many more lives if they were installed compulsorily.

The state-of-the-art system has been credited with saving three swimmers in France. Last year it helped to save a middle-aged German man who had a heart attack. So far, eight pools in Britain have installed the system.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1759273,00.html

 

[Alison]

Yes I heard about this last night, thats the pool I learnt to dive in during public times it is constantly packed, I can truly believe the lifeguards wouldnt have noticed her for a good length of time. The pool has a couple of water slides in it so there are lots of kids all excited and it becomes chaos at times.
I believe this system is relatively inexpensive (about £62000 Ive been told [by mother in law :duh]) Well it paid for itself there and considering the three deaths in this area from drowning this last week, it was money very well spent

 

[Alison]

LOL read the article now:£65000 rofl

 

[Alison]

Here's a bit more about the system and the story of the resue itself from the local newspaper

 

[naiad]

I think it's a great idea. From what I have seen, the lifeguards often have a very difficult or impossible job. In some pools they are very good, but in others there are always those who are not even trying.

 

[iceselkie]

Exactly, the ones that don't even try would benefit the most from this device.

A good lifeguard scans the bottom of the pool. hmm, i have yet to make up my mind whether this device supports good swimming practices..

 

[Lammy]

It's very hard to see through the splash and waves in a normal public pool, even if your lifeguard is looking out for it, it is hard enough to spot kids when you know where they should be - fetching the brick you tossed in earlier (I loved swimming lessons).

Great news for safety, but what happens when you want to practice a static or lifesaving drill !

 

[bam bam]

It is a great system, but it does have it's draw back!

yeap, if you have a monofin on and you are atationary for longer than a few seconds then the alarm will go off!!!

Though they were great at the Bangor pool as they did eventually turn the alarm off, though only after we had set it off a couple dozen time

Good to see the money well spent.

Brianna you are right in that they should be scanning the bottom, it is just that every little helps.

 

[Aquagenic]

I was a lifeguard and swim instructor for the last two summers and although our pool was only four feet deep it was sometimes hard to see the bottom, especially when crowded.

Admittedly, the ratio of good lifeguards to useless ones is about 1 to 12, but even the good ones can't see everything.

For instance, from 5:45 to 6:30 everyday the glare off the water was so bad that the bottom of the pool could not be seen in spots. Our pool never got so busy that you couldn't keep up with a head count, but in a busier pool it could be easy to lose track.

Lifeguards ARE NOT meant to be solely preventative. Although it is better to prevent an emergency than deal with one. Lifeguards ARE meant to be the first responders during an emergency. In other words, to be around to keep the victim alive long enough for paramedics to arrive. Not necessarily to prevent the emergency from happening.

People wrongly rely to heavily on Lifeguards, then blame them for not being able to provide complete protection. People think of lifeguards as either a public nuisance or a cheap babysitting service, they are neither. If people, parents especially, will take a more active role in the safety of their friends and dependants, and let the lifeguards concentrate on the more life threatenig issues, pools would be a lot safer. Also if pool managers held a higher standard for lifeguards by running impromptu drills, fake drownings, etc. the quality of lifeguards could be improved drastically. It is not that the Guards are incapable of being effective, they are just not required to. As they say, you only work hard enough not to get fired.

That being said, this system might be beneficial in some cases, but I think that humans are much more capable of determining a true emergency. It might be better to provide the lifeguard with a screen displaying the feed from the same underwater camera, or devote a lifeguard to watching just the underwater camera's. Besides, it would be too easy for this system to be fooled, set off the alarm, and create a cry wolf situation with the guards.

Just my two cents...

Comments?

~James

 

[subaquaticus]

In Saint Germain-en-laye, close to Paris, there is a swimming pool equipped with this Poseïdon system ;

one drawback : the lifeguards tend to become paranoïd and are so much afraid that the system might be triggered...

they tend to forbid in an - IMHO - exaggerated way any kind of underwater swimming, even if it is modest...

 

[naiad]

People wrongly rely to heavily on Lifeguards, then blame them for not being able to provide complete protection. People think of lifeguards as either a public nuisance or a cheap babysitting service, they are neither. If people, parents especially, will take a more active role in the safety of their friends and dependants, and let the lifeguards concentrate on the more life threatenig issues, pools would be a lot safer.

I agree. People have to take responsibility for their own safety and that of their dependants. The lifeguards are there as a safety precaution if any unexpected accidents happen, not so that people can take foolish risks in the pool.

I also think that members of the public should be more alert to the needs of others. The incidents when people have stood on me etc may be funny looking back at them now, but it is far from amusing that people have so little consideration for the safety of those around them.

Lucia

 

[subaquaticus]

I agree. People have to take responsibility for their own safety and that of their dependants. The lifeguards are there as a safety precaution if any unexpected accidents happen, not so that people can take foolish risks in the pool.

I also think that members of the public should be more alert to the needs of others. The incidents when people have stood on me etc may be funny looking back at them now, but it is far from amusing that people have so little consideration for the safety of those around them.

Lucia

I also completely agree with you !

 

[Aquagenic]

I agree. People have to take responsibility for their own safety and that of their dependants. The lifeguards are there as a safety precaution if any unexpected accidents happen, not so that people can take foolish risks in the pool.

I also think that members of the public should be more alert to the needs of others. The incidents when people have stood on me etc may be funny looking back at them now, but it is far from amusing that people have so little consideration for the safety of those around them.

Lucia

Well put naiad, glad other people share these same ideas.

~James

 

[iceselkie]

if i had to lifeguard a pool with one of those- i'm sure i would get annoyed by the constant questions/explaining/defending/paranoia/false alarms etc etc
and what about mechanical malfunction? it would be like having to install those movement sensors in every crib mattress because parents don't check their infants and they could get SIDS.

 

[subaquaticus]

it would be like having to install those movement sensors in every crib mattress because parents don't check their infants and they could get SIDS.

The probability for a baby to die of SIDS has nothing to do with the probability for a young unwatched kid in water to get drowned...

For children under 5, drowning is the first cause of deatth...

As far as I know, and thanks God, the probability for a baby to die of SIDS is extremely low...

 

[iceselkie]

sorry, bad comparison.