RALSA RISK RATINGS

In order to help those who manage swimming sites we offer our view on risk management. We agree with the law that occupiers should warn of unexpected dangers (rating A). We consider that those who take risks B & C should take the risk upon themselves & should not have recourse to the law. This is largely backed up by the Darby v National Trust (Court of Appeal 2001) & Tomlinson v Congleton (House of Lords 2003) cases.
It is hoped that this risk rating analysis will also be of use to swimmers in that it will clarify in their minds the risks, and therefore enable for them to be aware of their risk exposure.



RISK CATEGORY A - UNEXPECTED RISKS.
We call for warning of all unexpected dangers to be given. This should be done regardless of whether swimming is permitted or not. Very few swimming bans are 100% effective. Those who break the bans are usually young men, the group at greatest risk, so they above all must be considered. Details of the danger should be given. "Danger, no swimming" notices are simply not good enough. They are often erected in an attempt to avoid legal liability, but their avoidance of detailing the risks involved in the sites concerned is likely to render them ineffective in avoiding legal liability too. "Danger, no swimming" notices act as an incentive to swim for some people. We believe that greater safety would be achieved by taking down all these signs & replaced them with ones warning of any rating A risks there may be.

RISK CATEGORY B - EXPECTED RISKS OF FRESHWATER SWIMMING
Regular swimmers will be aware of these, but novices may not be. There is a case for wider publicity to be given of these, and in high-risk situations a B rated risk might be better treated as an A grade risk. Read Rob's comments on this website.

RISK CATEGORY C - BEHAVIOURIAL RISKS:
Exuberance, horse-play & drunkeness. By their nature these risks are, from an examination of a site, frequently very difficult to forsee. However we do know that young men aged about 25, especially those drinking alcohol, are at greatest risk. It must be more effective to target this group & this type of behaviour rather than to employ the grapeshot "Danger, no swimming" approach. We therefore call for greater publicity to be given to targeting this prime at-risk group.

NOTE:
Swimmers want facts, not eyewash. Exaggerating a risk is just as dangerous as ignoring it. Viz: A swimmer dived into shallow water because a "Danger, deep water" notice was nearby. He (quite rightly) sued the landowner. Exaggerating dangers may well frighten off the conforming majority, but not the rebellious few. They will see though exaggerations & lies, and ignore warnings, be they genuine or otherwise. It is foolish to squander your credibility.

A "No Swimming" notice is no substitute for a risk-warning notice. To some it is a challenge
GENERAL WARNING NOTICES
Swimming in rivers or lakes puts you at greater risk than swimming in a managed indoor pool. You may wish to advise the public of this. We suggest:
"WARNING Open water - be aware of risks involved."
You could then add any grade A risks.