Haverfordwest tragic SUP accident.

The ankle ones are recommended only for slow moving waters

are they actually recommended or just tolerated? They don’t make sense in any situation IMO especially given that a lot of people don’t even have the mobility to touch their toes so how can they release themselves when tangled and/or panicked? IIRC there was a separate situation where a chap drown as he got it wrapped around a parked boat & it basically held him underwater ☹️

Moving onto the weir itself, surely the owners should put something there to stop people going over it. Appreciate it could cause issues in retention of debris when the water is high – so would need a bespoke design. There should also be something designed so if anyone would get trapped in there, a way for them to escape. What, I don’t know, but some form of steps and railings?

Totally impracticable and stupid idea. It would require a screen similar to our trash screens where they are for safety purposes to keep someone from going through, the screen would have to have the bars set at 6″ apart no more so therefore on the main river they would constantly be blocked with weed and debris so preventing it from doing its job which is to maintain river levels. A wier/sluice have a few feet of concrete wing wall on either side then that’s it. All our weirs and sluices have buoys across to prevent large pieces of debris and boats from getting stuck on them and yet it still happens.

It’s utterly laughable that the authorities think that putting up signage would help. Britain is so festooned with pointless over the top warning signs that people would completely ignore them

Fair enough if we went down the Austrian route of only signing occasional things that are actually deadly then we might have a chance. But in the land of
” danger reservoirs can kill”
“Danger Hot water”
” danger this packet of nuts contains nuts”
” danger this Thermarest is not a US Coastguard approved lifesaving device”
” danger hot coffee”
” extreme danger, this is a Llandegla black route”
Etc
Etc

A risk assessment would have identified that as a considerable hazard as such.

I got the impression they were mostly sea based so didnt recognise the threats weirs pose.

Moving onto the weir itself, surely the owners should put something there to stop people going over it.

That would become a threat in its own right in the wrong conditions and also be seriously problematic for debris catching during floods. Plus it would prevent its use in safe conditions.
There are options for improving warnings although how much these beat good signs would be debatable.
The appendix does show various options mostly floating barrels with a passage gap so people who know what they are doing can keep going and hopefully others will get the hint.

There should also be something designed so if anyone would get trapped in there, a way for them to escape.

According to the report when they put the fishrun in they were asked to put in corner blocks to try and give exit points (the nasty thing about weir hydraulics is they tend to be uniform and so dont have a weak point to escape from). Sometimes ladders help although the report does suggest one problem was the paddleboards getting stuck and since it was ankle leashes the person couldnt manage to get free. Which would be problematic for any escape option.

“I got the impression they were mostly sea based so didnt recognise the threats weirs pose.”

This is a huge point. I’m from a sea background, have been on and around the sea all my life surfing, windsurfing, sailing and sea kayaking – including plenty of rescue/lifesaving/powerboat courses. I’ve surfed (badly) plenty of big breaks and whilst I’m a rubbish surfer, i do know where to put myself to minimise danger. I’ve crossed oceans under sail and sea kayaked hundreds of miles.

In my 40’s I started paddling inland moving water…..how hard can it be i thought and surely I know enough from my years of training on the sea to be an expert straight away…

.I knew NOTHING…couldn’t pick out a dangerous weir from a safe one, couldn’t judge a safe water level from an unsafe one, had no idea how rainfall would affect certain rivers to make them dangerous whilst actually making others safer.

It was incredible feeling the force of an innocous little stream and how unlike even the biggest set of waves, inland moving water can hold you down literally for ever. I basically had to relearn everything from scratch apart from maybe the hyperthermia and medical stuff.

So I’m not suprised that a fully trained RNLI guy was out of his knowledge sphere on a pretty basic weir.

The problem with ankle leashes is that in flowing water if the leash gets hooked on a bouy or something the flow prevents you from reaching the leash or your ankle. There have been fatalities.
If you use a waist leash you can always reach it.
The weir disappears when the tidal section below the weir is at high water and you can paddle safely past the weir.
As the river level drops the weir becomes more dangerous, add in that the river level was high and you have a potential disaster.
When the instructors had run that section the tide below the weir was high.
There are hundreds of weirs on rivers.
If in doubt don’t go near them.

It’s a shame that there is no mention of designing weirs on rivers in a way that doesn’t cause deaths, the most extreme suggestion in the report is a possible barrier near the weir.

I agree

Good point, perhaps, but you might be ignoring the fact that many weirs were built decades ago to control river flow and help prevent flooding.

Dangerous weirs are still being built, even though there’s information about how to design safer ones, and some safer ones are built, which shows that it can be done. Dangerous but redundant weirs are being left, rather than demolishing them and restoring the natural river. Similarly, some are removed, it’s quite feasible.

Section 2.6 is reflective in detail.

It only discusses things that might have affected the weir in question. What’s missing is a recommendation to review all weirs and risk assess them. Unless the cost of removing the risk is grossly disproportionate to the benefit, the risk must be removed. There’s already a legal duty to do that (look up the ALARP principle) but weir owners need reminding.

Barriers at the top of weirs can cause a pin hazard to kayaks and canoes.

Barriers at the top of weirs can cause a pin hazard to kayaks and canoes.

Yes indeed, not to mention collection trees etc that make that worse. A clear sign that the MAIB don’t understand rivers – ironic, when perhaps their main conclusion was that the trip organisers didn’t understand rivers.

<div class=”bbcode-quote”>

The ankle ones are recommended only for slow moving waters

</div>
are they actually recommended or just tolerated?

That’s just a language thing.  I understood from the doc that it’s is recommended that you only use them in slow moving waters rather than it is recommend that they are used in slow moving waters.

Update …

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x4542ryqo

Report below.

It’s not a surprise there is a prosecution going on. It seems much of the incident was predictable and avoidable to anyone with training, experience and a suitable assessment of the risks.

The important positive is that lessons can be learned

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63906ea0d3bf7f328063e844/2022-13-Paddleboards-Report.pdf

That MAIB report is depressing reading. An entirely avoidable incident.

SAFETY ISSUES DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE
ACCIDENT THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED OR RESULTED IN
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Four stand up paddleboarders lost their lives because they became trapped in the
hydraulic towback at Haverfordwest Town Weir, from which there was no means of
escape. [2.3]
2. The tour leaders had planned for accommodation transport and weather; however,
without a documented risk assessment and briefng of the participants, the planning
and preparation for the tour were inadequate and had overlooked both the active
food alert for the river and the risk posed by the weir. [2.4]
3. Clothing, buoyancy aid and leash wearing were inconsistent across the group and
did not follow recognised guidance that paddleboarders on fast-fowing water should
wear a suitable personal fotation device and quick release waist leash. [2.5]
4. Lack of clarity over responsibility for the Haverfordwest Town Weir resulted in the
hazards it posed to river users being inadequately mitigated. Specifcally, a weir risk
assessment had not been carried out; the efectiveness of the fllets to create ‘wash-
out’ zones had not been assessed; and the signage of the hazard was inefective
and did not conform to national guidelines. [2.6, 2.7]
5. The tour leaders were experienced paddleboarders who had undertaken training as
instructors; however, they did not have the training, experience, or qualifcations to
lead itinerant tours, and their pre-tour planning and reconnaissance did not identify
the hazard posed by the weir. [2.8]
6. The tour leaders’ decisions went unchallenged by the participants because they
appeared confdent and competent. [2.8]
3.2 SAFETY ISSUES NOT DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE
ACCIDENT THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED OR RESULTED IN
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Without an active national governing body for the sport of stand up paddleboarding
in the UK there is:
a. no consistent safety messaging to the sport’s participants on stand up
paddleboard safety in respect of potential risks from weirs and other hazards,
or on the wearing of appropriate safety equipment (PFDs and leashes, etc.);
and,
a. no metric for those who seek to participate in a sport in an environment where
there are multiple unregulated training providers, with inconsistent governance,
to judge the competence of those businesses ofering stand up paddleboard
training, tours or expeditions. [2.9]