[2four2]

A big red flag for me is that safety is not one of their foundational values.

[ben-schaaf]

It's literally the first thing in the list of foundational values.

> 1. The Right to Swim

> Safe, healthy and swimmable waterways should be accessible to all people.

[cassepipe]

I guess they mean safe water as in water you will not get ill from swimming in whereas I think parent is talking about safety as in safe from drowning

[eesmith]

"safe" means "safe", which should include:

Will you get ill from the water? (As you mentioned.)

Is it separated from watercraft traffic? (I've been to swimming areas with buoys to mark off where motorboats are not allowed.)

Is there enough safety infrastructure? (For faster rivers, people can get pulled downstream too far. Is there a rope at the end of the bathing area to help people catch themselves? If the river has steep banks or walls, are there ladders for people to get out? Are there life rings and poles so people on shore can help those who get into trouble?) While this could lead to drowning, other possibilities can include hypothermia, or if someone managed to get onto small island but is exhausted and can't get off.

Are there appropriate cautions posted or even closures for things like (this shows my beach background) unusually strong rip tides or jellyfish swarms?

Is the area physically appropriate for swimmers? (I'm old enough to live through the pull-tab era, where people would toss the sharp-edged tabs into the sand, then someone else would step on it and cut their foot, eg, https://pulltabarchaeology.com/archaeology/ . Or read about the "syringe tide" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syringe_tide .)

[ccppurcell]

Why do you guess that? The sentence includes both "safe" and "healthy"; the latter is redundant on your guess about the former. This is basic reading comprehension really.

[sakjur]

A lake can be unsafe for people to swim in yet have a healthy ecosystem and vice versa. Or, if your reading is correct, redundancy might be an aesthetic choice.

[The_Colonel]

> yet have a healthy ecosystem

Interpreting "healthy" as "healthy ecosystem" doesn't really make sense in the context of an initiative focused on people being able to swim.

This thread gives me the vibes of arguing for the sake of arguing. The first point mentions "safe" and "healthy", of course this initiative cares about both good water quality and safety from drowning, because those are quite important things for people wanting to swim.

[nayroclade]

> This thread gives me the vibes of arguing for the sake of arguing.

You must be new around here

[yreg]

> This is basic reading comprehension really.

Really? Do you need to attack the parent and make them seem dumb?

[fifilura]

Better connection to nature makes swimming safer. Children learn to swim and respect water.

[sakjur]

I’m not sure I quite understand why that’d be a red flag?

It’s great if there are lifelines, education, and good security equipment by the water, but if it’d be the city’s responsibility to keep me safe from drowning I’d worry they’d try to push me into swimming only where and when they have chosen.

[ehnto]

My guess is that it goes without saying, because it's part of their school curriculum. (Assuming this has a particular countries perspective)