It has now happened twice that a program I used to coach has gotten itself in trouble with a sudden storm and had boats sink.
The Oxford men's lightweights were on a training trip to Spain a couple of years ago, boated in nice weather (with the go-ahead of the host club), and got caught by a sudden storm. The coaching launches ran into difficulty, the eights filled with water, and one crew completely went down. One rower got separated from the boat and drowned.
This Spring, William and Mary went afloat with an eight and a four and launch, on their new site on the Chickahominy River. Although known for its wind (it is not the protected bit of river we used when I coached there), the conditions at the time of boating were apparently perfectly safe. But when a squawl came, the waves grew, and the eight, the four, and the launch sank. Fortunately, everyone made it out alive.
Not having been involved with either of these accidents, I want to make it clear that I have no great amount of specific knowledge beyond having read some first-hand reports and having seen some second-hand analysis. So I will not attempt here to provide my own analysis of the facts in each case. I know the coaches are experienced and safety-conscious, and would not knowingly put their crews in any danger, and I do not doubt that they acted responsibly in either of this cases. That is all I will say about these two events. Instead, I would rather discuss the issue more generally.
The Oxford incident provoked wide discussion, mostly in the UK (surprisingly not mirrored in the USA or in any other country), on whether boats should be made to be rowable when they are fully filled to the gunwales. Some boat makers already enclose the under-the-seat compartments, which, together with the enclosed bow and stern decks, would provide enough buoyancy to allow a boat not to sink, and even to be rowable (albeit with difficulty) back to shore. The theory is that rowers get into the most danger when they are in the water - even if the conditions are not cold enough to cause hypothermia, the rough weather could separate someone from the boat (as happened in the Oxford case) and this increases the chances of death. Some people, of course, just like enclosed compartments because it keeps their extra layers dry.
The campaign in Britain reached the level of demanding regulations requiring boat builders to produce fully-buoyant boats. It does not increase cost much or, apparently, decrease speed, but the belief was that if it is not required then not everyone would do it. The British Amateur Rowing Association (ARA), which is generally pretty worthless, basically ignored the issue. Enough discussion has gone back and forth on the internet to tarnish the reputation of the ARA and certain individuals therein, and I do not intend to add to it from my distance. But rather than countering arguments or proposing other solutions, the ARA has been beset by an alarming amount of inactivity, disinformation, and cover-up.
Where I will chime in, then, is on principles. I remain opposed to the regulation, not because I am opposed to boat safety or buoyant boats (indeed, if I were buying boats in the future, depending on where I would row them, I would seriously consider only buying fully-buoyant boats - alerted to this issue by the discussions in Britain, I became alarmed that my former club in Zurich, which rows on the usually choppy and dangerous Zuerisee, does not have a policy to use only fully-buoyant boats). I remain opposed to regulations in general. What we need, and what we have, is an awareness campaign (see www.leoblockley.tk). We could also do with official recommendations. We do not need regulations. I prefer to live in a free world where people learn to be responsible, not in a nanny state where someone else thinks for me and anything I do wrong must be someone else's fault.
I am all in favor of safety. I wear seatbelts in cars, I wear a bike helmet (and advocate use of bike helmets), and so forth. But I do not think that such things should be required by law. Let people take risks. If I chose not to wear a bike helmet one day and I had an accident, I'm the one who gets hurt. My fault; end of story. When I cox and I do not wear a lifejacket (and I don't, and didn't even when I coxed regularly), it is my decision. Someone else may not like that, but I am not doing anything to hurt anyone else.
There is an argument I have heard that even if the potential harm is only to the person who takes the risk, there is still communal harm when something happens. So if there are a number of rowing-related safety incidents, then rowing gets branded as "unsafe" and events will have to be restricted and canceled, as the sport might even become litigious. It is a circular argument. If there are a number of incidents, people may make other decisions - for example, if someone drowns because his boat swamped and did not have enough buoyancy, then a lot of people may decide they only want to buy boats from companies that provide sufficient buoyancy (good on them). The parents and other concerned people can start a campaign to promote such safety measures (as happened in the case of the Oxford lightweight's parents). As more and more people agree and take this sensible safety precaution, the market will force certain boatbuilders to change their designs or go out of business. Fantastic. We do not need a law to do that. If people do not agree and keep buying less-safe boats and drown, then they cannot plead ignorance to St. Peter.
The fear is that if the cost, or the perceived danger, gets too high, the government may go the whole way and ban or seriously hamper rowing. If informed adults using products which are what they are advertised to be get into trouble using those products for the intended purpose, why ban the purpose? People die in car accidents in large number - maybe governments should ban driving as unsafe. Arguably, this makes more sense than banning rowing, because most fatal accidents in driving involve more than one vehicle and fault can often be traced. The drunk driver may survive while the sober and careful driver may die. Think about that too much and people will be scared off the roads in case someone else does something, but the same people might take to the water because they are in control (or think they are in control).
Where governments and rowing federations can be involved is in educating the consumers. They should not be involved in regulating the consumers to death.
Yes, I have scratched crews I have coached from races due to safety concerns. Yes, I have applauded race organizers with the guts to cancel major regattas because they thought the conditions were unsafe to run a regatta even though huge numbers of out-of-town crews wanted to race. Yes, I have pleaded for an end to the madness that is bumps racing (no doubt regular readers are familiar) - and especially Oxford Torpids which is usually flooded out, and after coxing in Torpids once myself vowed never to cox in any bumps race ever again (and never have). But in the end, adults involved know what they are getting into.
Where do we need regulations? Where the actions of one person directly cause injury to another and there is nothing the other person can do. So the crew that boats without lights (or bowballs… another thing I have observed far too often in Britain), or the crew that drives recklessly, endangers someone else. Someone who builds sluices on trafficked waterways knowing the danger (for readers who are not familiar, ask anyone who rows in Britain about the dreadful locks), these people cross the line and endanger others maliciously.
Someone who chooses to boat in difficult conditions (or who chooses to boat in good conditions but gets hit by a sudden storm), or someone who chooses to cross the street, these folks endanger themselves. Someone who builds a boat without extra buoyancy (but does not pretend that it has this buoyancy), does not actively endanger someone else because that someone else makes the decision to use that boat.
It is a slippery slope. Impose one regulation and suddenly we are micro-regulated. Advise self-regulation (such as by a rowing federation instead of by a government) and then get either the same thing, or massive over-regulation to fend off government encroachment, or after an incident risk government intervention anyway. Where will it end?
The question then comes up if we need rules to protect those who otherwise do not know. Maybe we need rules for children… maybe. Do we need rules for adult novices? Since when should inexperienced people be a class protected by law? From the point of view of novices, they should know that they have never gotten in a boat before and should not try to do an activity without proper supervision and guidance - or, if they do, then they accept the risk. They should determine if the folks coaching them are any good - basically, that they are honest. From the standpoint of the supervising people or club, they should be honest. If they are sending their novices out in a gale, then they deserve to be sued for their recklessness and dishonesty, but we do not require legislation for that. Similarly for folks on training trips who do not know the local water, they should ask.
If someone has a poor safety record, I think twice before I take his safety recommendations, if at all. If I trust someone's safety record, I may take their advice even when I might otherwise be less cautious with certain conditions. In the end, we must all be honest to others and responsible for ourselves.
In January 2002, I went on a sledding trip. This was not sledding like kids do on dinky hills. This was Switzerland, which means getting on a piece of wood with no pads or helmets or parachute and hitting the slopes. Conditions were not good that weekend, to say the least. I was at the top of one particularly dangerous run and found out that many people were giving it amiss because the conditions were so bad. The two best sledders in our group took each other out on their first run down the trail and ended up in the hospital. I realized that I am not experienced at sledding, that I cannot steer well around sharp corners, and that not even the good folks could brake with the amount of ice there was on the trail. Nevertheless, I rather stupidly elected to take the risk. I made it down a little bit from the top of the mountain, then I saw a sharp corner and realized that I was not skilled enough to make it around such a sharp corner at that rate of speed and there was no way for me to stop the sled. I tried to throw my body around, and then the last I saw my sled it was going over the cliff. I think I heard it landing on the trees below, but I couldn't see it. So I had to walk down the mountain - over an hour - periodically hearing noise behind me and jumping into the bushes to avoid people coming down on out-of-control sleds. Fortunately, this was not too often as most people were opting to avoid this run.
I made a bad decision. Luckily, I am alive to tell the tale. Next time, I take the ski lift back down and try a different mountain with better conditions. But I had only myself to blame.
Should there have been legislation to keep someone like me off the slope? As I said, the two best sledders in the group were the only two who ended up in the hospital (although I came the closest to actually dying). Maybe ban sledding altogether?
Maybe ban rowing altogether? Same thing. Let people take responsibility for themselves. We do not need government for such things, or inevitably we will ultimately not be allowed to do anything.
I do not see the need for regulation. Just get the word out. Obviously, from what I have read about the situation in Britain, the ARA is doing a lousy job of it, which is hardly news. But the ARA has a tendency to regulate and be over-beaurocratic and just as bad as any government when it finally does act, and often silly in the process. Let the ARA come out with some serious advisory - and I do not mean sit around and study the issue for ten years, since they have enough information in front of them already. Let them say it loud and clear. And then let them leave it up to responsible adults to listen - or not to listen at their own peril.
Information is a good thing. The more people know, the better they can take decisions. The problem with regulations is that they often allow people to hide information behind the rules, and then when the exceptions come along people cannot learn. Give people the information they need and they can learn. Mistakes will happen, but then others learn. The biggest tragedy from the death of Leo Blockley will be if no one learns from what happened to him, and it happens again because someone did not know. If it happens again because someone did know but did not care, then it is that person's fault.
I do realize that the Oxford lightweights, and William & Mary, did not consciously put themselves in as much danger as they found themselves, and in no way do I wish to imply that they did so. They put themselves into as much danger as any reasonable and responsible person might put themselves in: they decided to do an activity that inherently carries with it some degree of danger, but did so taking the generally-accepted precautions (and Oxford, on a training camp, even consulted the local folks for their advice on weather conditions). Then lots of things happened. One lesson to take out of this is that with a more buoyant eight Leo Blockley would still be alive today. I am not blaming the victim, but it is unfortunately such tragic events that put us in a situation where next time the next person can make a decision with more facts in front of him than were readily available to the Oxford lightweights.
Things are always happening to people that they do not expect. So maybe we should either accept that there is an inherent risk to living, or just shoot ourselves now and get it all over with, or have the government come lock us all up in rubber suits in padded cells.