Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Robots on Lake Michigan beaches to prevent drownings

mlive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 121 posts

Re: Robots on Lake Michigan beaches to prevent drownings

#71

Post by whalesalad »

slug wrote: post #61
bongodongobob wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In ALL of the great lakes, 45 people drowned last year. I have no idea what the drownings near shore was, but I mean, millions of people live on the borders of the Great lakes. 45 is pretty damn good and I think resources are better spent on other things.

And how many of those are young kids ? 1 is already too many https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s0514-vs-drowning.ht...

Is it though? Death is an inevitability. Impossible to optimize the world for zero deaths. It’s a fools errand.

Re: Robots on Lake Michigan beaches to prevent drownings

#72

Post by thaumasiotes »

rich_sasha wrote: post #36
ben7799 wrote: post #24

If it's $12k and requires an operator this seems more of a band-aid than anything. Where are the operators going to come from? And for a lot of places the operator + device probably pays for 3 lifeguards or swim instructors. Nothing is going to get better until we start trying to get out of the hole and improve the average person's ability to swim and make decisions in open water. I used to be a lifeguard and swim in…

I once went on an organized swim with wild marine mammals. What struck me was how many people on that trip could not swim and only relied on buoyancy aids and snorkels - I mean, guys, clue is in the activity title! To be clear, this wasn't some swimming with captive dolphins, we were a few hrs out of port, in the middle of nowhere, in deep water.

> What struck me was how many people on that trip could not swim and only relied on buoyancy aids and snorkels

I get the relationship between buoyancy aids and being unable to swim.

But snorkels? If you can't swim, a snorkel doesn't do anything to help you. What a snorkel helps with is making it more convenient to see things that are underwater.

Re: Robots on Lake Michigan beaches to prevent drownings

#73

Post by rich_sasha »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #72
rich_sasha wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once went on an organized swim with wild marine mammals. What struck me was how many people on that trip could not swim and only relied on buoyancy aids and snorkels - I mean, guys, clue is in the activity title! To be clear, this wasn't some swimming with captive dolphins, we were a few hrs out of port, in the middle of nowhere, in deep water.

> What struck me was how many people on that trip could not swim and only relied on buoyancy aids and snorkels I get the relationship between buoyancy aids and being unable to swim. But snorkels? If you can't swim, a snorkel doesn't do anything to help you. What a snorkel helps with is making it more convenient to see things that are underwater.

A buoyancy aids doesn't necessarily keep your head above water on its own. With a snorkel you can float head down.

Re: Robots on Lake Michigan beaches to prevent drownings

#74

Post by thaumasiotes »

makeitdouble wrote: post #67
abfan1127 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know its tongue in cheek, but in practical terms, there is negative consequences for pushing the zero drownings. To achieve zero drownings, we have to have zero risk. the only way for zero risk is to eliminate it (i.e. ban swimming). However, banning swimming has many unintended consequences (swimming is great exercise, swimming during boat use is important during collisions). At some point, we will encounter water…

Luckily none of the narrative here is about zero drownings. Or more precisely, people will express targeting zero drowning, but they're not making the logical jump you're pointing at. The device in the article is someone pragmatic, lifeguard situation in most places is pragmatic, there would need to be a crazy shift to get people to agree to a more absolute stance.

> Luckily none of the narrative here is about zero drownings.

> Or more precisely, people will express targeting zero drowning, but they're not making the logical jump you're pointing at.

Um, compare this comment, left hours before yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40779917

> Fewer and fewer places to swim, more and more places just made everything a wading pool or a splash park to reduce liability, and after a generation of this there is an undersupply of people who can teach others to swim. Now some municipalities in my area are trying to ban swimming in open water.

Re: Robots on Lake Michigan beaches to prevent drownings

#75

Post by luma »

pomian wrote: post #62
ben7799 wrote: post #24

If it's $12k and requires an operator this seems more of a band-aid than anything. Where are the operators going to come from? And for a lot of places the operator + device probably pays for 3 lifeguards or swim instructors. Nothing is going to get better until we start trying to get out of the hole and improve the average person's ability to swim and make decisions in open water. I used to be a lifeguard and swim in…

Dartmouth college (USA), had a requirement that you must pass a swimming test to receive your degree. ( Obviously - if you didn't know how, there were free lessons.) They have recently dropped that requirement! ( After more than 200 years.) Why? At least with the old rules, you always knew that if a person was a Dartmouth grad, you could push them in the water. Or, at least, not worry about boating with them.

These days, you can't really push anyone into the water unless you're ready to pick up the bill for whatever non-waterproof electronics they current have on their person.

It's hard to explain to young people exactly how or why it was, once upon a time, perfectly acceptable to toss people into the nearest body of water with no explanation needed or offered. I think we lost something along the way :D

Re: Robots on Lake Michigan beaches to prevent drownings

#76

Post by jpollock »

Anon84 wrote: post #60
jpollock wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People drown in swimming pools all the time.

People drown in bathtubs all the time... There are only two obvious ways to minimize risk: teach people to swim or prevent people from swimming. Guess which one is more cost-effective?

Since you can't stop them from swimming, it's teaching them to swim.

The GP post was "stop them from going into dangerous areas", which is why I pointed out _swimming_pools_ would meet the definition of "dangerous".

Re: Robots on Lake Michigan beaches to prevent drownings

#78

Post by makeitdouble »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #74
makeitdouble wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily none of the narrative here is about zero drownings. Or more precisely, people will express targeting zero drowning, but they're not making the logical jump you're pointing at. The device in the article is someone pragmatic, lifeguard situation in most places is pragmatic, there would need to be a crazy shift to get people to agree to a more absolute stance.

> Luckily none of the narrative here is about zero drownings. > Or more precisely, people will express targeting zero drowning, but they're not making the logical jump you're pointing at. Um, compare this comment, left hours before yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40779917 > Fewer and fewer places to swim, more and more places just made everything a wading pool or a splash park to reduce liability, and aft…

From the same comment:

> They closed all the pools to save money

It comes down to economics. I share the commenter's assessment that there might be fewer places to swim than before, but I think it also comes from fewer people interested in swimming in the first place, which creates the vicious circle.

To draw a parralel, there's also fewer skate rinks in my region, ski resorts also closed in significant numbers. There's just not enough demand to justify the cost, and while lowering the requirements could partially help, I don't see it working even mid-term, and certainly not long term.

On liability, I'd suspect that's not the real issue (is the town actually liable if you drown on your own swimming (= with a swimsuit and clear intent) in an unmarked body of water ?) and it might be more on the image and keeping away some demographics. Basically the same level of care as forbidding RC toys in parks.

Re: Robots on Lake Michigan beaches to prevent drownings

#79

Post by daemonologist »

akira2501 wrote: post #12
beart wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels a bit like blaming the victim. There are any number of things that can go wrong which may or may not be under your control. Specifically, the Great Lakes are more like seas than lakes. They have rip currents that can unexpectedly get you into trouble.

The robot brings you a flotation device. You should have one of those already. You should be wearing it if you're on the water for exactly the reason you've stated. Almost no one actually does this. I've lived and fished on the lake for years. It's great for recreation. Way too many people do so entirely unprepared and often drastically underestimate the impacts of alcohol out on a boat in the hot sun.

The robot in the article seems to be mainly focused on swimmers, who usually wouldn't have a flotation device, rather than boaters.

Re: Robots on Lake Michigan beaches to prevent drownings

#80

Post by jasonfarnon »

whalesalad wrote: post #71
slug wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how many of those are young kids ? 1 is already too many https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s0514-vs-drowning.ht...

Is it though? Death is an inevitability. Impossible to optimize the world for zero deaths. It’s a fools errand.

The problem is that once it is widely accepted that death is inevitable, that number will jump up from 45.
Post reply on HN