[abfan1127]

I know its tongue in cheek, but in practical terms, there is negative consequences for pushing the zero drownings. To achieve zero drownings, we have to have zero risk. the only way for zero risk is to eliminate it (i.e. ban swimming). However, banning swimming has many unintended consequences (swimming is great exercise, swimming during boat use is important during collisions). At some point, we will encounter water in ways that require swim skills.

Drownings are tragic, however, we can't 100% prevent things without severe negative consequences.

[makeitdouble]

Luckily none of the narrative here is about zero drownings.

Or more precisely, people will express targeting zero drowning, but they're not making the logical jump you're pointing at. The device in the article is someone pragmatic, lifeguard situation in most places is pragmatic, there would need to be a crazy shift to get people to agree to a more absolute stance.

[thaumasiotes]

> Luckily none of the narrative here is about zero drownings.

> Or more precisely, people will express targeting zero drowning, but they're not making the logical jump you're pointing at.

Um, compare this comment, left hours before yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40779917

> Fewer and fewer places to swim, more and more places just made everything a wading pool or a splash park to reduce liability, and after a generation of this there is an undersupply of people who can teach others to swim. Now some municipalities in my area are trying to ban swimming in open water.

[makeitdouble]

From the same comment:

> They closed all the pools to save money

It comes down to economics. I share the commenter's assessment that there might be fewer places to swim than before, but I think it also comes from fewer people interested in swimming in the first place, which creates the vicious circle.

To draw a parralel, there's also fewer skate rinks in my region, ski resorts also closed in significant numbers. There's just not enough demand to justify the cost, and while lowering the requirements could partially help, I don't see it working even mid-term, and certainly not long term.

On liability, I'd suspect that's not the real issue (is the town actually liable if you drown on your own swimming (= with a swimsuit and clear intent) in an unmarked body of water ?) and it might be more on the image and keeping away some demographics. Basically the same level of care as forbidding RC toys in parks.

[WalterBright]

I would never own a swimming pool due to the ginormous sums in liability judgments.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/steilacoom-to-pay-...

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/jury-awards-13-mil...

[makeitdouble]

I can't read the first article, but judging from the second:

> The sidewalk is “perennially covered in water and algae,” according to the complaint. Other Queen Anne residents testified in court that they had also fallen at this location.

It reads to me like the sidewalk was a public danger, the building owners were under the hook to maintain it but never cared, until literally getting sued.

What am I missing ?

[thaumasiotes]

You can read the first article. https://archive.is/txCN0

A summer camp run by the city government left a group of 9 teenagers "unsupervised" next to a lake. I feel safe in saying that a lake cannot constitute a public nuisance.

DJ McCutcheon, one of those teenagers, "was underwater for about six minutes before bystanders rescued him" [after which he subsequently died], strongly suggesting that he was unsupervised in only the most technical sense.

I would have to agree with WalterBright that Steilacoom didn't do anything unreasonable here. The idea that 13-year-olds can't be trusted not to kill themselves if left - not even alone, but away from an adult who is officially responsible for keeping them alive - for six minutes,† is completely absurd.

The legal trouble appears to have arisen mostly from the fact that leaving the group of teens "unsupervised" violated a formal written policy of the camp, not from the non-fact that it involved some kind of wrongdoing or recklessness.

† They were left for much longer than six minutes, but since 100% of the problem occurred within a six-minute window, a standard that aimed to solve the problem would require smaller periods of "unsupervision" than that.

[makeitdouble]

Thanks, so the town was sued for managing a summer camp where the supervisor couldn't supervise the kids, and it was a structural problem (if was alone peddling 12 kids)

[WalterBright]

Maybe watching one's step?

[makeitdouble]

I get the feeling that people would react differently if it was related to cars.

For instance a plane of rolling rocks right in a corner that would screw with tire grip and have several cars fall into the valley because of it. Would you see it as an issue with drivers not being skilled enough to keep control under adverse conditions ? Or request the maintainer of the road to do its job and fix it ?

[Apocryphon]

People can swim in bodies of water without fierce currents.

[jpollock]

People drown in swimming pools all the time.

[Anon84]

People drown in bathtubs all the time...

There are only two obvious ways to minimize risk: teach people to swim or prevent people from swimming. Guess which one is more cost-effective?

[jpollock]

Since you can't stop them from swimming, it's teaching them to swim.

The GP post was "stop them from going into dangerous areas", which is why I pointed out _swimming_pools_ would meet the definition of "dangerous".

[Apocryphon]

My point is that limiting swimming in certain areas is hardly the same thing as banning all swimming, it just feels like there is an alarmism about alarmism and perhaps there can be nuance and self-reflection from all sides of the debate.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40784425

[dylan604]

Tool's Ænema is now playing in my head.

[pineaux]

Learn to swim! Learn to swim! Learn to swim!