Here in Chicago, a group of people used to meet regularly to swim in Lake Michigan in an area not open for swimming. The city shut the meetups down, citing a lack of lifeguards.
Just to the east in the Indiana Dunes, there is a state park right next to a national park. In the state park, swimming is allowed only along a short stretch of shoreline, where there are lifeguards. They aggressively stop people from swimming elsewhere along the beach. The adjoining national park is all “swim at your own risk.”
I’ve encountered similar inconsistent practices further up the lake in Michigan.
Why do governments prohibit swimming or restrict swimming to specific areas instead of just posting “swim at your own risk”? If they wish to make a specific area safer by providing guards, that is fine. But why not allow people to assume their own risk elsewhere?
Because they are afraid that if someone does get hurt, our colleagues in the bar will sue them, notwithstanding signs that say “swim at your own risk”, and the courts will find them liable.
But I just read all the public beaches closed for the season after Labor Day. And using a floatie on a windy day can zip one right away into the deep water.
Yesterday had a beach statement warning of dangerous conditions with onshore waves up to 6ft. Swim at your own risk yet expect to get rescued if in trouble is not good advice
Is that a realistic fear? Are there a lot of such lawsuits? And are they successful?
As far as I know, the Indiana Dunes National Park has been swim at your risk since the 60s, and I can’t recall ever hearing of lawsuits resulting from deaths. Looked at the other way, if a government provides lifeguards and someone dies, wouldn’t the government be MORE liable in that instance?
In the areas you mentioned - Chicago and Northern Indiana - it is largely because of 1) the number of people drowning to death and cost of body retrieval, 2) the cost of rescue missions for near-drownings, and 3) relatives of the deceased and relatives of the permanently damaged people suing the living crap out of the local municipalities because their loved one went swimming in an area with no lifeguards that likely ALSO had “no swimming” signs posted everywhere. Then there are instances where people attempt to help a swimmer in distress and wind up dead after helping..
Also 4) due to industry on the lakeshore in some areas it’s dangerous to swim in the water due to the pollution, which can make you sick all on its own (steel mills dump a lot of nasty crap into the environment).
If people really WERE willing to assume their own risk (and their heirs would likewise accept that) it might be a different story. However, that’s not how things work in today’s world.
There are also issues in Lake Michigan with dangerous currents (one such is why people who fall into the Lake from Navy Pier in Chicago often literally wash up on the beach in Indiana a few months later), on some days wave hazards, and underwater hazards. Again, while the Coast Guard and other local authorities will attempt to rescue idjits who, for example, wind up miles out in the lake on swim floaties or whatever there is a definite cost to such efforts, and success is not guaranteed. Nor this sort of thing limited to the Chicago area.
Sometimes, it’s not even about being mean or cheap or fearing lawsuits - Lake Michigan (and other bodies of water) can be dangerous in and of themselves so warnings of “don’t swim here” might well have a component of “or you have a high risk of death”. And, as noted, these hazards are not always easily visible from the surface.
This is a US thing I don’t think this would happen in any country (granted most my experience has been in the US or UK, any dopers from other countries ever heard of something like this where you are?).
Utterly bonkers to me. It’s a beach, outside, in nature. It was not a swimming designed for humans to swim in and there is no reason to assume it is safe to do so, or that the government has any duty, beyond the absolute minimum (maybe a warning sign if the whole thing is about to collapse in countless tons of rock and cliff face) to ensure your safety while you do so.
It’s a weird quirk of the US (and unlike other quirks of living in the US, less well known outside the US) that “the outside” is really heavily regulated, with all sorts of curfews and restrictions to access, even in land that is owned by the public for the express purpose of outdoor recreation.
Last week at the Jersey Shore two people drowned and multiple people had to be rescued. I was in the ocean about three miles from where one of them drowned. The difference? I was there when the lifeguards were there. The guy that drowned jumped in later. Do you know what happens when someone needs help when they try to swim when lifeguards aren’t on duty? Rescuers still show up and risk their lives to try and save them. The 911 dispatcher doesn’t just hang up because it’s afte 5pm and it’s swim at your own risk.
That’s because in the US we expect perfect safety at all times, and when something goes wrong, it’s not our fault, we are never accountable for our actions, and someone else is responsible, so we can sue the crap out of them. Never mind that no swimming sign, or that barrier fence, hold my beer!
I suspect cities, counties, state parks, national parks, etc. have varying tolerances for risk (like open water swimming from a beach that they are responsible for) depending on the size and budget of their legal resources.
That’s the key - It’s impossible to have lifeguards everywhere. Over the years, I have driven on about 200 miles of Texas beaches and have never seen a lifeguard, but I don’t go to crowded places.
Touristy places like the east end of Galveston, Port Aransas, Surfside Beach, and the lower end of South Padre Island have lifeguards because they get crowded with a mixture of families, sunbathers, rowdy students, etc. Many, or perhaps most, of these people have little or no beach experience. That combination and crowd density is a recipe for (possible) disaster, so they get lifeguards.