So, regarding the thread in IMHO about people who can’t swim, I took it upon myself to determine what percentage of people who died by drowning were non-swimmers as opposed to those who could swim. I learned drowning is the second leading cause of accidental death for children age 1-14. I learned that males are 3.7 times more likely to drown than females. What I could not learn, was what proportion of adolescents and adults who drown can actually swim. (I’m not counting the toddlers and very young children here, since I think I can assume that hardly any of them can swim.)
Your mission, fellow dopers, should you choose to accept it, is to find the answer to this burning question. I sure couldn’t! Perhaps this should be in GQ. Mods, feel free to move it if you feel you ought.
BTW, as a non-swimmer, I think I can safely report that my chances of drowning are effectively zero, unless I have a stroke while in the tub. I just have a nagging suspicion that swimmers are MORE likely to drown since they engage in recreational water sports that non swimmers do not. Of course boating falls into this equation, and I am, however, open to the possibility of being wrong.
This emedicine article claims that between 1/4 and 1/3 of drowning victims have had swimming lessons. However, if you go on to the second page, you’ll see that drowning has so many different causes, it’s impossible to blame all or most drownings on not knowing how to swim, or knowing how to swim, for that matter.
Note that the linked article that started that other thread mentioned that no one involved could swim, not those who drowned nor the bystanders. You might want to amend that to “swimmers are more likely to drown since they are more likely to engage in recreational water sports…”
Naturally, there’s also things like car accidents sending you into the water, and the risk of trying to save a drowning loved one.
Alice, that’s why I was searching for an overall breakdown - like of the 4500 accidental drownings in 2001, 3000 were not swimmers. That’s the statistic that’s missing. I find it odd.
To amend, I mean whatever the reason for being in the water, how do the percentages of drownings break out between swimmers and those who can’t. And Ferret Herder, since I can’t swim it isn’t likely I’d be diving in to save anyone else!
Does the statistic of 1/4 to 1/3 of drowners having had swimming lessons (assuming the lessons were successful) not tell you what you are asking, or am I misunderstanding?
Sorry if I’m unclear. Actually, I’m not sure swimming lessons by themselves have a great deal of relevance, I’m sure there are many folks who can swim without ever having taken lessons, and people who have taken lessons (like me, several times!) and yet still cannot swim. I’m talking about whether or not the drowning victims had the ability to swim. I do recall in my travels through the google links that although men report the ability to swim at a higher rate than women, they also drown almost four times as often. That’s why I’d like to know how the statistic break out on this one point. I would just like to know if more swimmers drown than non swimmers, or is it the reverse.
I read in the newspaper all the time of people drowning who don’t know how to swim. Usually they’re in boats or rafts and not wearing life preservers. Often they’ve been drinking.
Thisstudy examining drowning deaths from 1992-2001 in Canada concluded that 71% of drowning victims were swimmers.
This Canadian Red Cross summarymay have been citing the same study; they conclude that “at least 32% of swimming victims between 5 and 14 did not know how to swim or were weak swimmers” (pg 16). The study also makes reference to inedriated non-swimming adults drowning in backyard pools, but I didn’t see a statistic associated with it (on page 19).
Bucking the trend a little, thispage mentions that “one quarter of drowning victims were swimmers” in small recreational boating accidents.
And if it makes any difference, keep in mind that swimming is a very popular activity in Canada (I don’t know how it compares to the US). The most recent number I’ve seen is that only about 4% of Canadian-born people report not knowing how to swim (without any clarification on what is defined as “knowing how to swim”).
That came from the recent studythat showed that 1 in 5 new Canadians (particularly people who have been here less than 5 years) did not know how to swim (even though 79% of them reported planning on spending time in or near water) compared to 1 in 20 people born here (86% reporting plans in or near water this summer).
So many interesting facts in these things! Apparently Québec is home to about half of all the private backyard pools in the nation! My parents have always had one.
An article in Finnish here states that not being able to swim is second most common reason for drowning here in Finland, alcohol being the highest. Given how rare people who can’t swim are here (something like 5-10% of adults depending on age and sex), to me that sounds like not being able to swim makes you more suspectible to drown and not less. Shame it doesn’t give out exact numbers, though.
Knowing that “between 1/4 and 1/3 of drowning victims have had swimming lessons” doesn’t really help unless we know what percentage of the general population can swim. It makes a big difference if it’s 90% of the population who can swim, or if it’s only 20% of the population.
mnemosyne you have found what I was looking for in regard to Canada. I feel somewhat vindicated that my original thought was correct - more drowning victims can swim than not (even in Finland, since drinking seems to be cause #1). It seemed logical to me that this would be so - non swimmers for the most part are going to avoid deep water. Thanks!
That’s what I was about to point out. I can swim, I’ve had swimming lessons… and I also had a really scary moment while kayaking where I got really stuck underwater. Whether or not I was Olympian swimmer or a newbie would have made no difference.
If your car rolls down an embankment into a deep pond - knowing how to swim will make a difference.
If the Mafia encases your feet in concrete and drop you in the Hudson River - knowing how to swim will not make a difference.
If you’re attending a wedding held on a yacht and the boat capsizes - knowing how to swim will make a difference.
If you fall out of your rowboat and get knocked out in the process - knowing how to swim is probably not going to make a difference.
A lot of people also drown because they are in really cold water and knowing how to swim makes very little difference because of the effects that the cold has on both your mind and your body.
You seem to be trying to prove that since more people who drown can swim, it’s better if you don’t how to swim if you plan on never going in the water. But perhaps those who drowned because they could not swim did so in situations that someone who could swim could easily get out of (i.e., falling out of a boat or falling into the deep end of a swimming pool.) If they *knew *how to swim, they may not have drowned.
mnemosyne’s cite also has 34% of water-related deaths being non-aquatic activities (stuff where you don’t plan on being on or in the water, such as cars going off the road etc.) So over a third of the fatalities occurred when people never planned on going in the water.
