General Discussion Triathlon Talk » "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2008-07-31 5:38 PM

User image

Expert
1277
1000100100252525
St. Paul, MN
Subject: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article
Boooo!

http://www.startribune.com/local/26149954.html?location_refer=Homep...

Now I understand why the rule is there, but what about personal responsibility? I understand the risks. I am prepared. I accept the consequences of my actions. Now I will say that this person probably should have had another person along. But where is a person supposed to swim if they're training for long-distance swimming, Lake Minnetonka? There are only so many lakes where there are no motor boats allowed.


2008-07-31 7:31 PM
in reply to: #1574369

User image

Expert
743
50010010025
Minnesota
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article
My first reaction was, "You've got to be $hitting me!"

I would have never imagined in my wildest nightmares about the nanny state that it would be against the law to take a swim. It would have never crossed my mind to pay a city lifeguard $115 to follow me in a rowboat.

Then again, this is the same city that just gave Medals of Valor to the police officers that raided the wrong house and got into a gunfight with the innocent homeowner all based on a bogus tip. Apparently there were too many officers handing out misdemeanors to rogue swimmers and covert smokers to check out the tip and do a real investigation prior to the raid.

This is the same state that threatened to prosecute several nuns for cutting the hair of the homeless. The nuns didn't have a cosmetology license.

If it isn't apparent, we live in a society that requires permission from our rulers to do the few things that aren't already banned. A society that accepts the idea that it is ok for the police to stick guns in the faces of citizens that wish to brave floods and hurricanes to protect their property. Am I the only one that finds it ironic that the government threatens lethal force to save someone?

I just finished a 1.1 mile swim in the lake across the street from me less than an hour after eating, by myself, without a lifeguard. I didn't tell anyone where I was going either.

Is it long before I can't make such an admission on a BBS like this. The right wing inspired and ill named Patriot Law opened the door for the government to electronically troll boards like this. The left wing inspired nanny state has decided to make everything with the slightest risk illegal. What a lovely combination.

I feel better now that I have that off my chest!

2008-07-31 7:37 PM
in reply to: #1574369

User image

Expert
743
50010010025
Minnesota
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article
Paddle,

Post this in the triathlon talk forum. It ought to get a bit more play there.

B-One

2008-08-01 11:07 AM
in reply to: #1574369

User image

Pro
4541
2000200050025
A farming town in MN
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article

I guess I look at this from a different angle.  Considering the drowning last month in Lake Calhoun, and the drowning last year in Nokomis, these were both incidents where the swimmers were swimming outside of the guarded areas.  Granted, these were during non-guarded swim times and no guards were present, but I think the City of Minneapolis is just trying to eliminate any more of these incidents from happening.

During guarded swim hours, I look at it more from the standpoint of the guards.  Most of these guards are kids--high school students trying to make money during the summer.  They are probably not 'liable' (hate to use that word) for drownings that occur outside of the guarded area, but think of the tremendous pressure and responsibility they feel for people swimming across the lake.  I know if I were a guard and witnessed a drowning outside of the guarded area on my watch, I would still feel some measure of guilt, thinking I might have been able to do more to prevent the drowning or done something differently during rescue to change the outcome of events.

I believe in personal rights, but how are the guards supposed to determine the swimming ability of each cross-lake swimmer and justify when it's o.k. for one person to swim across the lake and not another?  We've seen several incidents this year of strong swimmer's drowning at triathlons due to heart conditions.  How can the guards determine that? 

I'm not a strong swimmer and wouldn't think of swimming across the lake on my own, so take my comments for what they're worth...

2008-08-01 11:15 AM
in reply to: #1574369

User image

Pro
4541
2000200050025
A farming town in MN
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article

I DO disagree with the $115 guard escort requirement.

I think any floatation escort should be allowable...

2008-08-01 11:33 AM
in reply to: #1574369

User image

Regular
169
1002525
Southeastern Minnesota
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article
Maybe someone should tell the Minnesota politicians to HTFU. We got the same stupid problem in Rochester.


2008-08-01 4:00 PM
in reply to: #1575989

User image

Expert
743
50010010025
Minnesota
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article
sparco - 2008-07-31 11:07 PM

I believe in personal rights, but how are the guards supposed to determine the swimming ability of each cross-lake swimmer and justify when it's o.k. for one person to swim across the lake and not another?  We've seen several incidents this year of strong swimmer's drowning at triathlons due to heart conditions.  How can the guards determine that? 

I'm not a strong swimmer and wouldn't think of swimming across the lake on my own, so take my comments for what they're worth...



Personal rights do not come without personal responsibility. You seem to be passing the responsibility off on the lifeguards.

Too many in society wish for the government to remove any risk involved with personal choice. We insist on personal choice, but then wish to require others to assume the risk associated with those choices. Once the cost of assuming the risks becomes apparent to society, society insists that the government limit the costs. The only way to limit the costs is to remove the choices.

We wish to swim(choice), but want someone to take care of us. We require others to pay for our lifeguards through taxes (insisting others assume our risk). The taxpayers insist on regulations to limit liability (public's wish to limit cost). End result, we lose our ability to swim freely in public waterways (freedom flushed).

We wish to buy a house. We can't quite afford the cost of a traditional loan so we insist that our legislators require lending institutions to come up with new opportunities. The lending institutions do not wish to assume the risk of these loans so they pass them off to government backed lending institutions passing the risk off on the taxpayer. Any guesses as to what the next step will be?

If one wishes for the government to remove risk, the end result is the government limiting choice and freedom.
2008-08-01 4:29 PM
in reply to: #1574369

User image

Elite
3687
20001000500100252525
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article
Jeff (Leapdog) is really going to regret missing this thread.
2008-08-01 4:42 PM
in reply to: #1577304

User image

Expert
1277
1000100100252525
St. Paul, MN
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article
mndiver - 2008-08-01 4:29 PM

Jeff (Leapdog) is really going to regret missing this thread.


HA! I thought the same thing.
2008-08-01 4:49 PM
in reply to: #1574369

User image

Expert
743
50010010025
Minnesota
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article
I was thinking of Jeff also.
2008-08-01 5:47 PM
in reply to: #1577186

User image

Pro
4541
2000200050025
A farming town in MN
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article

Personal rights do not come without personal responsibility. You seem to be passing the responsibility off on the lifeguards.

I totally agree with you.  Freedom MUST come with responsibility.  All I'm saying is that on a guarded city beach, we can't choose to personally ignore the city ordinance/law and not expect a penalty for breaking that ordinance/law.  Same goes for going over the speed limit.  I consistently drive about 9 miles over the limit, and if I get pulled over, I fully expect to get a ticket (which luckily hasn't happened yet after 3 times getting pulled over ).

If someone wants to swim across an unguarded lake that's not within city limits and they have no ordinance against swimming across the lake, more power to them.  They make that choice and are aware of the possible consequences.  I guess what I'm saying is that if someone is given the responsibility of being in a 'protective' role, we at least owe them a little respect in regards to obedience to the laws they're enforcing.  No, lifeguards may not be a fair comparison to police officers who put their life on the line in many more situations, but life guards are put into a threatening situation if they're forced to rescue someone who knowingly put themselves into the situation and then requires life-saving.  That lifeguard now has the obligation to put his life in danger.  Same as a fireman putting his life in danger for an arsonist who gets trapped in a building (o.k., that's an extreme example, but you get the idea).



2008-08-01 5:49 PM
in reply to: #1577304

User image

Pro
4541
2000200050025
A farming town in MN
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article

mndiver - 2008-08-01 4:29 PM Jeff (Leapdog) is really going to regret missing this thread.

I fully expected him to be here by now.  Should we start talking about taxes to pay for city bike trails?

2008-08-01 9:50 PM
in reply to: #1574369

User image

Elite
3687
20001000500100252525
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article
He comes home from vacation tommorow.
2008-08-01 9:58 PM
in reply to: #1574369

User image


10

Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article

On the subject of Lake Nokomis swims (this one legal).........does anyone happen to know the distance from the farthest left buoy to farthest right buoy at the main beach? I'm estimating that 8 lengths would equal about .5 mile and I'm wondering if that is even in the ballpark. 

If anyone has a better guess, please let me know! Thanks!

2008-08-02 10:20 PM
in reply to: #1574369

User image

Master
2808
2000500100100100
, Minnesota
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article
Awww, it's nice to know you guys missed me!

I'll defer to B-One on this one till I can read the article and comment.
2008-08-02 11:22 PM
in reply to: #1578360

User image

Champion
10018
50005000
, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article

I'm with Sal on this one.  Sometimes there are just laws and we have to follow them or pay the consequences.  Find your way to a lake without these rules - there are plenty.    And frankly, the bike ride there will do you good.

I was swimming at Cedar Lake the same night this happened.  I had a conversation with my two friends (yes, I have non-BT friend who are triathletes! I tried!) and the one guy even had a chat with the lifeguard aboutwhere we could swim.  She was very lacksidaisical about it, really, but we stuck to the swim area and watch several casual swimmers make their way from beach to beach (and they didn't inspire confidence, believe me, and I'm a poor swimmer).  At one point I was alone and decided to do "laps" around the two swim area buoys and had a great set because of it.   I had good sighting practice, didn't need to stop, and it was the most productive swim of the night for me.  My preference was that if I needed help, I was glad to know that the lifeguard was watching out for me.

I wouldn't be proud of swimming in places unwatched, not telling anyone, and (presumably)without something like a swimsafe.  That's not cool.  Laws aside, I don't want to hear about one of my internet pals drowning due to bad decisions.  While many of you are great swimmers, anyone can have an accident and in that case you would be awfully happy to see a high school lifeguard chick to save you (without penalty).

It's funny, because when I saw that part about the $115 fee for an escort I wondered if we could get a group together...



Edited by BikerGrrrl 2008-08-02 11:23 PM


2008-08-03 7:11 AM
in reply to: #1577673

User image

Pro
4541
2000200050025
A farming town in MN
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article
kjk - 2008-08-01 9:58 PM

On the subject of Lake Nokomis swims (this one legal).........does anyone happen to know the distance from the farthest left buoy to farthest right buoy at the main beach? I'm estimating that 8 lengths would equal about .5 mile and I'm wondering if that is even in the ballpark. 

If anyone has a better guess, please let me know! Thanks!

I walked the beach with my Garmin before Lifetime tri and got 293 feet (just under a 100 yards)...

2008-08-03 7:16 AM
in reply to: #1578360

User image

Pro
4541
2000200050025
A farming town in MN
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article

leapdog - 2008-08-02 10:20 PM Awww, it's nice to know you guys missed me! I'll defer to B-One on this one till I can read the article and comment.

Welcome back Jeff...didya get some open water swimming in down in Cancun?

2008-08-04 7:55 AM
in reply to: #1577435

User image

Expert
743
50010010025
Minnesota
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article
sparco - 2008-08-01 5:47 AM

Personal rights do not come without personal responsibility. You seem to be passing the responsibility off on the lifeguards.

I totally agree with you. Freedom MUST come with responsibility. All I'm saying is that on a guarded city beach, we can't choose to personally ignore the city ordinance/law and not expect a penalty for breaking that ordinance/law. Same goes for going over the speed limit. I consistently drive about 9 miles over the limit, and if I get pulled over, I fully expect to get a ticket (which luckily hasn't happened yet after 3 times getting pulled over ).

If someone wants to swim across an unguarded lake that's not within city limits and they have no ordinance against swimming across the lake, more power to them. They make that choice and are aware of the possible consequences. I guess what I'm saying is that if someone is given the responsibility of being in a 'protective' role, we at least owe them a little respect in regards to obedience to the laws they're enforcing. No, lifeguards may not be a fair comparison to police officers who put their life on the line in many more situations, but life guards are put into a threatening situation if they're forced to rescue someone who knowingly put themselves into the situation and then requires life-saving. That lifeguard now has the obligation to put his life in danger. Same as a fireman putting his life in danger for an arsonist who gets trapped in a building (o.k., that's an extreme example, but you get the idea).



You make a good case. However...

Speeding and swimming are two different situations. If one is speeding on the highway, he or she is not only putting him or herself at risk. He or she is also putting other drivers at risk. There is a compelling interest in the government protecting one citizen from another. The individual swimming across the lake risks only himself.

Your argument that the swimmer was putting the lifeguard at risk would have some merit if there was a legal requirement for the lifeguard to act. However, lifeguards, nor the police, are under any legal requirement to put themselves at risk to save someone. While I can't pull the cases out of my rear right now, there is case law to back this up. If you die on a beach due to lifeguard negligence, you have no legal recourse with either the city nor the individual lifeguard. Even if the lifeguard were legally required to act, the problem would not be with freedom, the problem would be with socialism. As I stated in my previous post, when we require others to assume our risk, we will lose choices.

I am going to make a jump here...

The people of Canada have insisted that the government (taxpayers) assume the risk for their health care. Once the inevitable rationing of care took hold, people began paying extra to their health care providers so they could get better and quicker service. The practice of paying more than the government allots for a particular procedure is now against the law. Everyone is now subject to the same crappy service. The people required others to assume their risk and as a result, their choices were taken away.
2008-08-04 8:27 AM
in reply to: #1578413

User image

Expert
743
50010010025
Minnesota
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article
BikerGrrrl - 2008-08-02 11:22 AM

I'm with Sal on this one. Sometimes there are just laws and we have to follow them or pay the consequences. Find your way to a lake without these rules - there are plenty. And frankly, the bike ride there will do you good.

I was swimming at Cedar Lake the same night this happened. I had a conversation with my two friends (yes, I have non-BT friend who are triathletes! I tried!) and the one guy even had a chat with the lifeguard aboutwhere we could swim. She was very lacksidaisical about it, really, but we stuck to the swim area and watch several casual swimmers make their way from beach to beach (and they didn't inspire confidence, believe me, and I'm a poor swimmer). At one point I was alone and decided to do "laps" around the two swim area buoys and had a great set because of it. I had good sighting practice, didn't need to stop, and it was the most productive swim of the night for me. My preference was that if I needed help, I was glad to know that the lifeguard was watching out for me.

I wouldn't be proud of swimming in places unwatched, not telling anyone, and (presumably)without something like a swimsafe. That's not cool. Laws aside, I don't want to hear about one of my internet pals drowning due to bad decisions. While many of you are great swimmers, anyone can have an accident and in that case you would be awfully happy to see a high school lifeguard chick to save you (without penalty).

It's funny, because when I saw that part about the $115 fee for an escort I wondered if we could get a group together...



The choice to swim alone etc. was a choice based upon the assessment of the risks involved. An activity that may be extremely risky for one individual, may be of inconsequential risk to another. I do not wish to base societal rules upon the lowest common denominator. I do not wish to allow others to impose their standards of risk upon me. I wish to be free to assess my own risks. By the same token, I do not have any desire to require anyone but myself to accept the consequences of those risks.

Your decision to do laps around the bouys was a decision that you made based upon many factors and MAY have been a good and safe decision for you. My decision may actually have even been less risky than yours depending on many factors. Let's assume that you have less swimming ability than I do. The lifeguard made you feel comfortable swimming the bouys. I do not know your ability, but did that confidence make you do something you wouldn't do if the lifeguard wasn't present? Was the water over your head at any time? How well do you know that lifeguard's skills, and abilities? Was the lifeguard even paying attention? Would that lifeguard act properly in a time of crisis? If, in a time of crisis, the lifeguard simply froze (which is a genetically preprogrammed response to adrenaline that I can document to you further if you wish) you would effectively have no guard at all. The point is that you were relying upon a completely unknown factor for your safety. This is not to dissuade you from swimming, but simply to point out that calculating risk is not as simple as it appears.

While it is true that $hit happens, $hit is a rare event and I do not base my decisions around fateful events. My life is overwhelmingly the result of choices made, not random tragedy nor luck. Statistically, the most risky thing folks of our age do everyday is to get into our car and drive. I am not going to drive less because I may die in a car accident (gas prices are another story). When we base policy on faulty risk assessment, too much freedom is lost. When we allow others to make our choices based upon their assessment of our risk, we become subjects and not citizens.

2008-08-04 11:43 AM
in reply to: #1578505

User image

Master
2808
2000500100100100
, Minnesota
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article
As a matter of fact I did. And no, I didn't rely on a lifeguard, nor did I get fined.

sparco - 2008-08-03 7:16 AM

leapdog - 2008-08-02 10:20 PM Awww, it's nice to know you guys missed me! I'll defer to B-One on this one till I can read the article and comment.

Welcome back Jeff...didya get some open water swimming in down in Cancun?



2008-08-06 4:39 AM
in reply to: #1574369


1

Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article

The long arm of the law reached halfway out into a Minneapolis lake this week and busted a triathlete in training. The east side Tuesday about 6 p.m., aware that it might get in trouble for swimming beyond the markers.

---------------

jbsjhn

 

 


Minnesota Treatment Centers
2008-08-11 12:19 PM
in reply to: #1574369


6

Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article
$125 for the fine, $115 for an approved escort?

for most, it would be worth the risk.

I swim outside the ropes all the time, but just not in the inner city. Lakeville dropped lifeguards to save money, so no problems here. However, the lake is too risky to venture too far from the swim area due to jet skis.
2008-08-11 12:35 PM
in reply to: #1594524

User image

Pro
4541
2000200050025
A farming town in MN
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article

bcc - 2008-08-11 12:19 PM $125 for the fine, $115 for an approved escort? for most, it would be worth the risk. I swim outside the ropes all the time, but just not in the inner city. Lakeville dropped lifeguards to save money, so no problems here. However, the lake is too risky to venture too far from the swim area due to jet skis.

Heh.  Good point. 

<hijack>I was gonna swim in Lake Marion last Friday, and saw all the waterfowl and feathers (higher risk of swimmer's itch), and decided to drive up to Lake Crystal to swim.  Much nicer swim.  Swim area is 75 yards across, no lifeguards and no problems (except for weeds) swimming just outside the ropes... 

2008-08-11 12:42 PM
in reply to: #1594571

User image

Champion
10018
50005000
, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article
I swam at Nokomis on Saturday afternoon and a lifeguard positioned himself on a surfboard, facing the swimmers, on the outside of the swim buoys.  I like to think it was for my own safety and he wasn't waiting for me to veer out  and then nab me   I had plenty of good deep water to swim in, just inside the buoys, and it was good practice to swim near the folks playing because it caused a little bit of chop like in a tri.
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » "Triathlete busted swimming across Lake Nokomis" - Strib article Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2