Canal Rescue Options

[ebalch]

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/78221

"“I was walking back past Victoria Park after fishing near the A339 bridge when I heard a woman screaming. I ran over and saw a man in the water. He was obviously in trouble and he kept going under.

“I was shocked to see some people on a boat laughing and taking pictures and making no effort to help him as his head disappeared.”

Congratulations to Mr Brodie, who saved the drowning man, but this could have been much more serious. How is it possible that people stood by and laughed? I'm no lawyer but could this possibly have had any consequences for those bystanders not helping had the man suffered more fatal injuries?

[motormad]

How could it have had consequences for people who are bystanders
Under that logic everyone would be charged with a crime

Is it nice? Not really. Illegal or criminal? No.

[Exhausted]

How could it have had consequences for people who are bystanders
Under that logic everyone would be charged with a crime

Is it nice? Not really. Illegal or criminal? No.

I'm not 100% sure but I think it is an offence in France to fail to come to the aid of a person in peril.

[Andy Capp]

I'm not 100% sure but I think it is an offence in France to fail to come to the aid of a person in peril.

Most European countries have a law requiring people to help, even if it is only to call the emergency services.

[On the edge]

Little wonder we want out of Europe!

[Simon Kirby]

As has been said, it's illegal in France not to help (non-assistance à personne en danger), as several other mainly European countries (according to Wikipedia).

As far as I know failing to help is not illegal in England and I don't think there is any general duty of care.

Rescuing someone from drowning is very dangerous as they can grapple you quite involuntarily. If you can throw them a line or branch to grab onto that's preferable - I work on the canal and virtually always have a throw-line and buoyancy aid with me which not infrequently attracts comments about 'elf and safety - fortunately I've never yet needed it. I wouldn't encourage anyone to go into the water to attempt a rescue, but I admire the fisherman's bravery as the current in the Kennet past the park can be very strong.

[Biker1]

but I admire the fisherman's bravery as the current in the Kennet past the park can be very strong.

Quite right Simon, before undertaking a rescue you should always consider your own safety first as a dead or injured person cannot rescue anybody.
To correct an inaccuracy, this section is not canal but is the River Kennet.

[JeffG]

Little wonder we want out of Europe!

What a cynical comment. And speak for yourself. Unless that was the royal we.

[On the edge]

What a cynical comment. And speak for yourself. Unless that was the royal we.

Umm. We have people laughing at the distress of others and our 'betters' wanting to take us out of Europe. Our media complain about the European Rules and regulations almost daily. We want out of the Human Rights legislation etc. etc. etc. Someone suggests that 'in Europe' most nations do have codes that demand onlookers help those in distress. Me being cynical? Which I freely admit is a personal failing, my comment was more ironic in this case I'd suggest.

[JeffG]

Perhaps I misunderstood your post then. I thought you meant it would be a bad thing to be obliged by law to help someone in a life-threatening situation (assuming it would not put oneself at risk - as I understand the French law allows).

[On the edge]

Perhaps I misunderstood your post then. I thought you meant it would be a bad thing to be obliged by law to help someone in a life-threatening situation (assuming it would not put oneself at risk - as I understand the French law allows).

No, I wholly agree we have a moral duty to help someone in such a situation and it would be no bad thing if we followed our neighbours and reinforced that legally. Just trying to make a point that there are a lot of sensible European ideas; but was being too obtuse (another of my sins)

[Simon Kirby]

To correct an inaccuracy, this section is not canal but is the River Kennet.

If I understand the report right we're talking about the river somewhere between the old A34 bridge and the old town bridge. That is indeed the River Kennet as you say, but it is also the Kennet and Avon canal, because in this section the canal navigation is canalised river, as it is for a fair bit of the river from Newbury to the Thames. The Canal and River Trust is the navigation authority for this section of the Kennet.

[MontyPython]

Perhaps I misunderstood your post then. I thought you meant it would be a bad thing to be obliged by law to help someone in a life-threatening situation (assuming it would not put oneself at risk - as I understand the French law allows).

That does pose the question (probably not answerable here!) of what one could call putting ones self at risk. Particularly if it were an enemy or someone you disliked who was at risk.

[Biker1]

If I understand the report right we're talking about the river somewhere between the old A34 bridge and the old town bridge. That is indeed the River Kennet as you say, but it is also the Kennet and Avon canal, because in this section the canal navigation is canalised river, as it is for a fair bit of the river from Newbury to the Thames. The Canal and River Trust is the navigation authority for this section of the Kennet.

You're right of course. The Canal does use this section of river for it's navigation but I always assumed that "canal" meant a man made section of navigation with little or no current flow.
I only made the distinction in my previous post because it is important to take the difference into consideration when thinking about going into the water. The flow on the Kennet can be very strong and dangerous with many weirs and sluices.

[blackdog]

WBC's scheme for the Wharf redevelopment includes (included?) a wharf basin opening on to the canal at right angles opposite Victoria Park. A scheme that could only be designed by someone without a clue about driving a 60ft narrowboat in a current. The original wharf basin connected to the canal at Greenham Wharf - to do this today they would have to connect through the A339 bridge arch by the library. Difficult I'd guess, but it would at least mean that the basin would be useable.

[Simon Kirby]

You're right of course. The Canal does use this section of river for it's navigation but I always assumed that "canal" meant a man made section of navigation with little or no current flow.
I only made the distinction in my previous post because it is important to take the difference into consideration when thinking about going into the water. The flow on the Kennet can be very strong and dangerous with many weirs and sluices.

Yes, I think it could be quite easy to mistake the strength of the current in the canal, especially if you had the typical notion of canals being stationary pounds of water, but as you say the current can be very strong in this section, and with the unseasonably high groundwater levels it is still flowing well right now.

[Simon Kirby]

WBC's scheme for the Wharf redevelopment includes (included?) a wharf basin opening on to the canal at right angles opposite Victoria Park. A scheme that could only be designed by someone without a clue about driving a 60ft narrowboat in a current. The original wharf basin connected to the canal at Greenham Wharf - to do this today they would have to connect through the A339 bridge arch by the library. Difficult I'd guess, but it would at least mean that the basin would be useable.

I never saw a detailed design. I really like the idea of a canal basin bringing a bit of colour and interest to that part of town. I'd have thought the difficulties could be overcome.