[antoko]

did you mean to contradict the article or did you not even read it?

Throughout the Instinctive Drowning Response, drowning people cannot voluntarily control their arm movements. Physiologically, drowning people who are struggling on the surface of the water cannot stop drowning and perform voluntary movements such as waving for help, moving toward a rescuer, or reaching out for a piece of rescue equipment.

[surfearth]

Both the article and the previous commenter are correct. People in late stages of drowning can't swim toward you, but they certainly will grasp on to you when you reach out to rescue them. If this happens, the rescuer will frequently submerge himself and use their legs and arms to forcefully push away from the victim before reengaging from behind. (Source: I was an ocean lifeguard for seven years in high school and college and have experienced this)

[robbiep]

Was waiting for someone to say this. They (Surf life saving Australia) teach the same here. I've only ever been involved in board or IRB rescues in real life but the old sea dogs say that it works wonders if they do grab into you: drop like a stone because the last thing a drowning person wants is to be attached to a person who is going under the water given their desperate struggle to keep their head up

[swombat]

Throughout the Instinctive Drowning Response, drowning people cannot voluntarily control their arm movements. Physiologically, drowning people who are struggling on the surface of the water cannot stop drowning and perform voluntary movements such as waving for help, moving toward a rescuer, or reaching out for a piece of rescue equipment.

They won't reach out for it, but if it happens to be within their reach they'll grab it.

[clarkmoody]

I've had water rescue training. I read the article as well.

Parent comment was addressing a drowning person victimizing the rescuer, which also seems to contradict the article.

[antoko]

You're right - I'm making assumptions when imagining the situations described in my head and jumping to unfair conclusions about your point.

When I imagine a person in the water trying to help it seems obvious that if you're next to them in the water they will clamber on to you and do whatever they can to keep their mouth out of the water to breathe.

When I image holding some object out for them to grab it seems the greater chance is that they wont be aware of the object, or unable to reach the object.

However a rescuer with actual knowledge would be aware of the situation and would ensure they physically touch them with the object so they have to be aware of it.

[jholman]

Yeah, though it's not even about forcing them to be aware of it. Like you quoted from the article, "cannot voluntarily control their arm movements".

So the question is, what's the Override Software doing with their arms? It's climbing a ladder, it's scrambling up a vine, it's hauling the body onto a boulder. If there's no ladder/vine/boulder, it's a shitty strategy, and they'll drown pretty soon.

If there's a rescuer in reach, like a foot from them, they'll climb the rescuer, unconsciously. If they drown the rescuer, they gain a minute of life, then they drown themselves. So that's bad for everyone.

If there's a life-saving device where they have to think about it and grab it, they cannot. Not will not, but cannot. But if the life-saving device arranges to be grabbed, they climb it. That's actually useful! If it floats, they can climb it and not-drown. If it's a rope, as they climb it, you can pull them to safety.

So, again. You can't count on the cooperation of the drowning victim, and it's not because they're "stupid" or something, it's because they're not people right now. But you can count on their body doing certain things.

[venus]

As a reasonably strong swimmer with no life saving experience - giving or receiving - this conversation is pretty fascinating, especially the casual nature experienced rescuers are saying things such as

> they're not people right now

This strikes me as an incredibly interesting concept. I wonder what other situations arise semi-frequently where participants temporarily abandon their people-ness? Has this notion been legally tested? If in a state of non-people-ness I drown my rescuer yet then survive, have I committed murder?

It's this kind of random tangent into conversations where knowledgeable people frankly discuss things I had never even imagined that I love about HN (and, to a lesser extent, reddit). FFS, I have a swimming pool downstairs. This conversation has made me realise I have no idea how to save someone I see drowning in it - if I can even identify they are drowning. I'm glad I'm reading it.

[jholman]

While I have lots of training as a rescuer (which motivated my previous comment), I actually have zero working experience.

Life-saving training is interesting and cheap (I believe it's subsidized by non-profits)! I recommend it! The Red Cross is one good organization. And note that they offer training specifically for pool owners (though I'm guessing you don't own the pool, merely rent in the same building or something).

[Filligree]

In the moral sense? No, clearly you have not committed murder.

In the legal sense? Um. That would get interesting. I imagine that if the court knows what happened, the answer would be 'no', but if no-one there knows this kind of thing might happen (including you) you might have a problem.

[malvim]

   You're right - I'm making assumptions when imagining the situations described in my head and jumping to unfair conclusions about your point.

Holy crap, it might be that recognizing mistakes this clearly happens a lot and I just haven't seen it, but I must say this is the first time I've seen it happen so clearly like this on... Well, on the internet!

Kudos for this.