To think that anyone taking a small child onto the middle of a frozen lake

[Reluctant1stimer]

Should face charges of some kind?
The front of my local newspaper today showed a photo of a couple far far out on the ice with a very small child or baby in a back carrier! They were so far out in fact that the paper had the photo blown up so you could make out this poor child because the distance shot was too far away. I am gobsmacked.

did anyone see that clip of the guy at the football match in december it was really cold that night and he was stood in the staduim (whatever they r called!) with a baby in his arms, what a massive massive twat, i wouldnt personally risk taking ds on a lke that frozen over because its a unneccesary risk and not one i would prepared to take

But medishmum, we all take unnecessary risks with our babies. We pop them in the car to go to the shops to buy sweeties or a magazine (not just essentials), we pop across the road when we spot a friend. Or are you saying you have only ever taken your baby out near cars (very dangerous things) for absolutely essential reasons?

The thing is, that in Britain anything to do with consumerism is seen as vital and a worthwhile risk, while anything to do with nature is seen as non-essential and not worth taking risks for. It's not the only way to view things. Where I come from, connecting with nature would be seen as essential, and shopping (except for vital food stuffs) would not be ahead of that on the list of many people's priorities.

Going on a 'monitored' lake abroad/Scotland/somewhere it is usual for it to freeze over and people know what they are doing is one thing. Taking your baby for a stroll on a dangerous, deep, cold lake with no knowledge of ice thickness, surrounded by danger signs is another entirely and I really can't believe the stupidity of people who do that.

"Some of us do actually know about ice and water"

Well, great, but as you point out yourself, "the British know so little about the natural world they live in" ... so it is not an obvious assumption that the people in the photo "know about ice and water" enough to defy official advice and strap their baby on for a walk on Derwent Water. That article clearly indicates that the local policec don't think it is safe to go on the ice where they people are.

They're arses to take the risk. Whether it's simple dimwittedness, or misplaced arrogance at thinking they know better than everyone else, it makes me - that baby doesn't have a choice in the matter, and the 7-year-old playing near the Danger sign in someone's post further down the thread isn't old enough to understand either.

I know we live in a nanny state etc etc, but sometimes eg when in care of a baby in highly unusual weather conditions it's not that big or clever to prioritise your own judgement over that of officialdom.

sorry i dont see how you can compare the two? taking your child onto a lake that has frozen over is a risk, it called a lake for a reason. you have a duty of care and imao you breach that duty if you knowingly walk onto a "lake" that is maybe frozen

I quite agree with that, Fimble. Just with the proviso, that the individual might actually know what they're doing and have worked out the ice thickness.

As for danger signs, I think they have become totally devalued in a country where you frequently see the sign Danger. No Swimming. Deep Water (what is swimming for if not for taking you across deep water?)

Cory, I agree with you that people are extremely naive and stupid about cars too (I'm not a driver but pedestrians can be stupid too).

But humans are not always consistent or logical. And of course we ought to engage with nature more directly, and if we did that we'd probably get better about it; but that still does not mean it's OK to be lax, or even to be extra-relaxed, about safety in regard to the natural world...

get better at it, I mean

My point is, that just because the British are ignorant about nature in general, it doesn't mean every single person who is out there on a pond is ignorant or is being lax about safety. There are still people out there who do understand about the natural world. SOmeone might be out on a pond and know what they're doing.

My point is, that however knowledgeable you are, and however sensible your precautions, you will get judged for taking your child into the natural world in a way that you would never get judged for engaging in a similar risk to do with shopping or car driving.

mehdismummy Tue 12-Jan-10 08:59:02
"sorry i dont see how you can compare the two? taking your child onto a lake that has frozen over is a risk, it called a lake for a reason. you have a duty of care and imao you breach that duty if you knowingly walk onto a "lake" that is maybe frozen"

Yes, and taking your child into traffic is also a risk: we know that a number of children are maimed and killed in traffic every year.

The point is that you can minimise the dangers of a frozen lake by being knowledgeable, but that it is very difficult to minimise the dangers of traffic, as that involves other people.

stewiegriffinsmum Wasn't there a terrible accident in Victorian times (I think on the serpentine?) where hundreds were ice skating and the ice came away at the edges?

A huge section of ice tipped and many people (over a 100 iirc) into the water at which point the ice settled back down over them.

Don't really know what my point is but it does make me a bit scared of iced over ponds.

I think that is a big generalization. You will get judged if you take your child into nature in a stupid way, eg flouting clear advice about ice safety in a particular area -- and that is fair, because even if you know or believe the ice you're on to be safe, you shouldn't behave in a way that inadvertently gives other less knowledgeable people (eg children watching) the impression that danger signs don't mean anything. Equally, you will get judged if you drive badly or unsafely or put your kid in the wrong car seat, or no seat, or let your child play beside a busy road. I can think of plenty of examples of people getting judged for those latter type of behaviours.

I see what you are getting at, I think; but think your statements are too sweeping and you are kind of undermining a valid point about the need for us all to be more informed and capable in re nature, etc.

not all british people are ignorant cory, and i dont see how you can make a comparison between the both, but hey great copying and pasting

That is my whole point, medishmum- not all people are ignorant, and therefore noone should be judged simply on going on a frozen pond until it has been established that this is actually an unsafe frozen pond and that they don't know what they're doing.

And yes, I agree that it is bad to flout danger signs. But many posters have been saying that any person going on a frozen pond/lake must be irresponsible regardless of the presence or absence of warning signs; that's the bit I can't agree with.

It is not true that you will only be judged for taking your child into nature in a stupid way: we've had several people on various threads claiming that any walking on frozen ponds is irresponsible; I have frequently been berated myself (in RL) for taking my children swimming in the sea.

People can be as idiotic as they choose to be but it's a different matter when it impacts on other people.

Don't walk on the ice in this country, don't go near huge waves when it's stormy, don't go trundling off in the desert ill prepared (thinking of that British chap last year in Australia). All good advice but someone always will and then other paople have to risk life and limb rescuing them. That's the bit that makes me . They should be made to pay the bill for their rescue in such cases.

Btw the OP didn't mention warning signs.

i would love to go swimming in the sea( not here though!) but i cant swim my ds daddy use to go caming for months in tunisia and morroco when he was little and went swimming everday in anything that resemles water!! luckily ds loves the water too

YANBU it's stupid to take a kid on a frozen lake.

sorry camping!!!

Cory I see what you are saying and funnily enough I went to school in a country where winter survival techniques were taught from 1st grade onwards and I used to do a lot of ice fishing and cross country skiing so have a good understanding of safety in such situations which is exactly why I am so condemning of people taking stupid risks.

You're right though, those parents who were walking on the lake in the article linked to on this post may have been trained abroad, they may be off duty paramedics for mountain rescue and perfectly able to look after themselves and their baby BUT the number of news articles in the recent cold spell about people having to be rescued and dying would suggest that they probably weren't

The other reason why I think it is irresponsible is that Britain is not set up to deal with such emergencies in very bad weather. In the type of country where we both went to school there is provision in the local emergency services for artic rescues as a matter of course, because the same cold conditions happen every year. That isn;t the case in the UK and in a cold spell like we are experiencing now the emergency services are already stretched to the limit.

Where I went to school there was a lake that froze over for about 4 months of the year every year, there were signs telling people when they could go on and when they couldn't. You won't find information like that next to Derwent and most people in the UK have little to none understanding of their environment in weather conditions that are so cold, so yes - they are crazy to risk it.

Well I'm in Cumbria and whilst it has been very cold I still wouldn't take a walk on Derwentwater, it simply doesn't compare to the ice in other parts of the world.

But if people want to do it, more fool them.

I grew up in the states (in Minnesota), and we were out on the frozen lakes in trucks and icehouses for ice fishing... so I guess I can't say much.

However, I can't say I would take the chance here, where I'm not familiar with the lake or aware of the thickness of the ice. It does seem just a bit foolhardy. And I'm not horribly keen on seeing people take chances involving their children, either.

Triggles Yes, exactly, if you live somewhere where these conditions occur every year you become aware of when its ok to go onto the ice, how thick the ice normally is in certain conditions etc. So a risky walk on the frozen lake becomes much less risky doesn't it?

In the last few weeks the river Ouse froze over for, according to the news, the first time in decades. No one would have a clue about how thick the ice was, if some patches were safer than others etc. So because a bunch of students decided so go skidding across it a policeman had to waste time stood at the side of the river yelling at them to get off. Just stupid.

Don't really mind adults taking risks with themselves but I just think its awful when they take stupid risks on behalf of their little ones.

After watching Ice Road Truckers on a couple of occasions, I now consider myself to be somewhat of an expert on ice in rivers and lakes . One of the episodes featured a really sad story about a truck driver who drove the ice route for a living, and had done for many years but the river had changed course slightly, and the current had then caused a weakness in the ice at a different point. He hadn't realised, drove over a 'safe' spot and was dragged under. I think it just goes to show that you can't always be guaranteed that the ice won't weaken, even though it's been OK up to a point. And taking children onto a frozen rivers and lakes is just stupid.