Biographical Overview: For the last 40 years, I have been around swimming pools as a competitive diver, lifeguard and now a coach. I survived the shallow pools of that era and its lack of standardization. The pools that I dove into averaged about 8 feet in depth. Many were less because the distance to the deepest part was pretty far from the end of the board. Diving boards ranged in length from 12 to 16 feet and were made of wood, fiberglass and metal. Even the thickness of the board was not uniform. Many were not even level. Some ceilings were low enough to hit with any body part. It was not uncommon to see divers catching handstands on the pool bottom after a successful dive. I am in no way suggesting that we go back to that era. We survived only because it was absolutely necessary to compensate for all of these changes in pool and board designs. That was something we understood. Nothing was exactly the same. My education and present teaching profession came as a result of being a diver. If I were not a diver, I don't believe I would have even gone to college. As a diving coach I was appointed to the Illinois Swimming Association as the Diving Chairman and have served in this capacity for the past 25 years. I started looking at diving safety back in 1977 when I saw a newspaper article about paralyzed people. The article said that diving was the cause of their situation. I thought that I must have been dreaming. The sport that was responsible for everything good thing in my life had destroyed someone else's life. As I read the article, I discovered that both were shallow water diving injuries. One occurred in Lake Michigan and the other in the shallow end of a swimming pool. The claim that diving was not safe had people looking at competitive diving and suggesting that it be dropped as a high school activity. I talked with my school district and informed them of what I was doing. I suggested that the one thing I couldn't argue was if they couldn't afford to operate a diving program. But if the claims were that the activity was unsafe, I would fight them all the way. I accumulated a lot of information from many different sources. I wrote many statements in the defense of the sport that had been attributed to US Diving people. Eventually I gave my sources to US Diving in 1984. That research became the basis for their "Position Paper" and initial coach certification program. Today I feel that diving is struggling for its very existence because pools are removing boards or are being built without them. If that trend continues, diving will become a memory to those of us that were divers. I don't want that to happen because future generations will not have the opportunity to reap the benefits that I feel I did. This project was completed to inform the decision-makers that this type of diving is safe. It is being maligned and disgraced by shallow water injuries and pools that shouldn't have diving boards in the first place. I am not an expert by any means. I just collected and looked at the information I could get my hands on. After digesting this information, I formulated my conclusions based on what was either written or orally conveyed to me. INTRODUCTION: Since it appears that US Diving has not focused on the following at this time, I have decided to do some research that may or may not yield some statistical data to help keep diving boards in use during recreational swims. I believe that many recreational facilities are the grass root training grounds for Competitive Diving in this country. This is the area that will determine the future of the Sport. If diving boards become extinct in the future, it will happen at the recreational level first, and impact the competitive aspect shortly thereafter. My intention is not to degrade US Diving, but rather attempt to protect the activity at the entry level. If Swimming pools get rid of diving boards or become very restrictive with their use, the Sport of Diving will eventually fade away. Diving seems to be well into that process right now. I believe that as recreation, the activity is just as safe, if not safer than the sport itself. Because of the Liability Crisis of the early 1980's, the focus leading to the removal of diving boards from pools with insufficient depth made the activity safer for the general public. I believe any injuries that may be occurring, are by people who really should not be using diving boards in the first place or who are behaving in a manner that places them at risk. Any injury is not good, but people still tend to look at the Sport after one and make certain judgments that are not in its best interests or even related to the Sport, recreational or otherwise. US Diving directly implies that the Sport is safe because of its Safety Program and certified coaches, who supervise the practices and meets. I however maintain that the activity, Recreational or Competitive is inherently safe, if there is supervision, whether it is a coach or a lifeguard, and the water is deep enough. I am hoping to find that any injuries are minor in nature and do not happen when the diver uses the diving boards. I have had a few conversations with people in aquatics over the years that have expressed concerns about patrons slipping and falling from ladders. I believe that if people fall off the ladders leading to the diving boards or fall from the rear or sides of the boards, they were not concentrating on what they were doing at the time. As I understand the situation, this has been one of the reasons given why high boards are disappearing. In an article titled, "A Springboard To Extinction", a reference was made that the pool operators do not keep statistics on injuries and the Insurance Companies set their rates according to industry standards. Unfortunately, according to the article, the Insurance Companies do not keep their own statistics either and continue to charge the competitive industry rate anyway. This is usually based on number of pools, involved and any pay out that may have occurred. Past safety record is usually not considered. I do not know at this time, whether there is a difference, if the organization is self insured, like PDRMA (Park District Risk Management Association) or MRMA (Municipal Risk Management Association). What I hope to find, can at least be turned into suggestions for use by the Risk Management people and various pool operators to implement into their daily routines for the safety of the general public. This assumes that they don't get rid of their diving boards first. BACKGROUND: Any search for answers must begin with a definition of the word Diving. It has been generally accepted that the word dive refers to entering the water in a head first manner. "Diving" is "Diving", no matter what the person was diving from or where it took place. It can be a dive from a dock in a lake or the side of a pool. It may be a dive from a boat, raft or roof, in a back yard above ground swimming pool, basically from anywhere including diving boards. The word Accident has been interpreted as something that is unforeseen and therefore unavoidable. According to this definition, not much could be termed a true accident. When injuries are so severe, fault will be assessed. The courts have proven this, time and again. Almost every incident that can happen has some foreseen clue and therefore is avoidable. It is generally known that most of the diving related injuries occur in shallow water. A majority of these "diving accidents" has been shown to occur in the natural environment. These are oceans, lakes, rivers, and streams. The back yard above ground pools are giving rise to more and more diving related injuries. Shallow water has been shown to be the primary cause of serious injuries in any diving related activity. The diver enters the water at too steep an angle and thus penetrates the water quicker and deeper than anticipated. In almost all cases, the diver misjudges the depth of the water. When contact with the bottom occurs, injury usually follows. Many of these injuries are lacerations, contusions, sprains or concussions. In general, most accidents are the direct result of horseplay (goofing around) or injudicious behavior. The individual was not concentrating on what they were going to do prior to or during the incident. This could be the distraction that takes the focus of attention from the intended dive. This search is no way advocating making pools deeper. Swimming pools are designed to accommodate a wide variety of aquatic activities. If there is no shallow water, drowning incidents will probably rise. Shallow water is the place where people learn to swim and weak swimmers can stand at anytime they may encounter trouble. Conversely, if there is no deep water, head and neck injuries will probably rise. Shallow water is not safe for any kind of diving. When people are able to stand above water level, there is always the possibility they will be enticed to jump, dive or otherwise be pushed into the water especially on warm days. There has to be some happy medium that can be safe and enjoyable for every pool patron. Education seems to be the tool to make the public aware of potential hazards. The depth of a pool is a definite concern for those that operate pools. The deeper the water the larger the expense. The water bill, cost of chemicals, filter and pump sizes are all based on the amount of water circulated in the pool. Various organizations will build facilities they can afford to operate. After the Olympic Games held in Spain, the local community closed down the venues because they couldn't afford to operate them. These were facilities that met or exceeded the Governing Bodies recommendations. To me, this says our Sports Governing Bodies may be pricing swimming pools out of the business of recreation. Since the Liability Crisis in the early 1980's, people have searched for the elusive Absolute Safe Depth for Diving. No real consensus came out of that, since even the experts couldn't agree. A safe depth discussion, at one time, ranged from 8 to 12 feet under a low board. The State of Illinois Board of Health has determined that 10 feet would be its minimum depth for a low board and 12 feet for a high board. From some of the earlier research, it was found that when the depths moved from 8 to 9 to 10 feet, the incidents of hitting the bottom dropped off dramatically to almost nothing. The question arises, how deep do pools really have to be to insure safety? No one seems to have that answer or better yet, will not guarantee that answer for fear of lawsuits. US Diving follows FINA facility recommendations but it does not warrant the accuracy or safety of these dimensions. The following statement was contained in a letter from Ben Harris, Water Safety Services, November 2, 1984.
"National Federation of High School Associations, State of Illinois, Federation Internationale De Natation Amateur, US Diving, National Collegiate Athletic Association, U.S. Department of Health Education & Welfare, American Red Cross, and the National Spa and Pool Institute do not make any claims as to whether their recommended depths are safe or unsafe." This statement still holds true today. If you only rely on the depth of the water to slow a body down so it can safely impact the bottom; you would need a depth in excess of 24 feet just diving from the pool deck. Richard Stone, Arthur D. Little Inc. Dec. 1980, stated that he doesn't see how adding a foot or two of depth provides greater safety under the condition of no steering, if the contact forces are in excess of those that a diver can manage. He therefore recommends a turning radius that has been termed an underwater steering radius. This is a path the body will follow underwater that is curved and steers the diver away from the bottom. Based on his findings (1981), he recommended pools be designed with this steering radius in mind for the worst case diver, which includes the slope beyond the diving board. He concludes that there is no practical or economical engineering way to slow a diver to the point where he can risk head contact with the bottom. The diver must be made aware of how these accidents happen. At this point in time, it would seem wise not to generalize about the whole range of possible "Diving Accident" scenarios. US Diving has its own statistics and Position Paper to defend the competitive side of Diving. "No SCI injuries in a sanctioned pool." This holds true for the recommended depth back in the late 1970's (AAU). The initial emphasis of this study was to research the types of "Diving Accidents" that happen in public swimming pools, particularly during the recreational swims. The objective was to look at any "diving accidents" that relate to the deep end of the pool. In particular, the type of incident that may be causing the disappearance of the high boards from some pools. Thus far in my quest to find answers to the question of why high boards are disappearing, I am beginning to see that statistical evidence is very hard to find, just as it was stated in the article "A Springboard to Extinction". At this point I feel that past incidents (Pre 1980's) might still be haunting the activity today. According to National Spinal Cord Injury Association, there now is a system in place to track spinal cord injuries and their frequency of occurrence, which was not the case for the past 15 years. The results of this system will not be seen for a few years to come. Difficulties Locating Exact Statistics. CONFUSION IN THE FINDINGS. Because of the problems mentioned above, I have decided not to use any statistics contained in the documents. If they are not reliable or accurate, others including myself can misinterpret them. Additionally, I feel that I may not have complete access to some information that is actually out there. It does not appear likely that I will be able to find anything pertaining to high board injuries just because of the difficulty in finding any diving statistics. I did search the Internet at various sites (included in the bibliography) and came up with very little information. If this is the case, then the article "A Springboard to Extinction" was correct in saying that record keeping is almost non-existent. INSURANCE: Insurance Industry coverage for swimming pools is based on the number of participants, potential risk of injury or suit and sometimes past safety record (The more injury claims, the higher the cost). Many insurance companies place a facility in the highest risk category just because it has diving boards. Normally, everything is underwritten separately, (i.e.: water slide, diving boards, wading pools etc). This appears to be done out of a lack of knowledge of public swimming pools and an obvious attempt to make money. Making money is the obvious reason for being in business. On the other hand, some pool owner/operators seek to reduce the costs of insurance, by bargaining and removing their diving boards to get a lower the rate of insurance. The bottom line again is money. They seek to save budget money to stay in operation. This is a "Catch 22" with diving boards being the sacrificial lamb. No matter what they decide to do, the real potential for diving injuries remains with shallow water. It appears that insurance companies do look at statistics but the facilities that account for the most injuries are not the pools they might be insuring. The high cost of insurance created the self-insured organizations that have appeared such as the Park District Risk Management Association and the Municipal Risk Management Association. As I understand their operations, the coverage cost is based on total operational budget. PDRMA tells me that it is a not for profit organization. This means that if there is any money left at the end of a given year, it is given back to its members. This type of management makes the insurance coverage more affordable. CONCLUSIONS After talking on the phone, reading numerous articles and searching the web, I have not been able to come up with any hard statistical evidence to support or refute my investigation. Since I can not even begin to calculate the number of people who dive from diving boards or the number of dives they do annually, it really wouldn't give any meaning to my quest for answers, even if there was a definite number of injuries. The scarcity of information could, however, validate the reason for keeping diving boards in municipal swimming pools. According to Gabrielsen in his 1996 report, "The Challenge", there appears to be fewer diving injuries now than 15 years ago. The reason given was the increased public awareness (Education). From the variety of information available, it appears that since State Pool Codes have changed and been updated many times since the original safety discussion of Diving (pre 1980), one would have difficulty finding documentation of injury incidents from the use of diving boards in municipal pools. There are certain inferences in some papers that seem confusing but further investigation into them reveal that the diving injury occurred in a residential pool or shallow water. These are mainly back yard pools. These pools can be above ground with no diving board and have a depth of 4 feet. Some will be in ground with diving boards where the deep end may be 9, 10 or 11 feet deep. The bottom may be a "V", "Hopper" or "Spoon" shaped where the diver can, with little effort, completely miss the deepest part of the pool. These bottom configurations seem to account for the most injuries. Even though there may have been some municipal pools with these configurations, many were deemed not suitable to have diving boards. What municipal pools still have diving boards in Illinois, meet or exceed the state pool code and/or the governing bodies' recommendations. When I refer to municipal pools I think of pools for recreational swims that have lifeguards for supervision, not the swim at your own risk pools such as hotel, motel or apartment pools. This is another area of confusion because local boards of health still have jurisdiction over motel, hotel, apartment and country club pools, and some people still think of them as public pools. The pools I refer to are operated by people who are trained in the field of recreation such as park districts (Municipal). In Illinois, they are able to set their own tax rate. They are not subject to the whims of other local governmental agencies. They control their own budget and therefore do their homework to keep up with changes in the field. They don't build pools to harm their patrons but try to accommodate as many activities as they can for them. It seems that when they look to build a pool with diving boards, they don't just look at State pool codes. Many go beyond and follow the governing bodies suggested depths and distances. They are very careful in this respect because they want to avoid lawsuits both now and in the future. From my experiences, I disagree with Gabrielsen on the following. Lifeguards are better trained and are expected to be more responsible than they were 15 years ago. Whether the guards are Ellis or Red Cross certified, they are audited regularly. In service training sessions occur at least weekly or more if situations warrant. They practice their skills and are informed of any new changes that may come about. They may be kids themselves but they are also considered professional rescuers and held accountable by the agencies that hire them. The reference earlier to 50 to 80% percent of diving injuries are alcohol related, seems to tell a story in itself. That is a wide percentage range, even as an estimate. It would imply that alcohol is readily available at or near these pools. That alone would appear to leave out municipal pools where alcohol is not permitted. It would seem to indicate that residential, motel, hotel, private and apartment pools have this availability. With alcohol and the lack of supervision (lifeguards) in many of these pools, it should be easy to imagine that more than just a diving injury could happen. Drinking and diving do not mix. Diving from diving boards still faces its toughest obstacle because of the words, potential for injury. There is always a potential for injury in any activity not just diving. Informed consent says that if a body is in motion or an object is in motion, or both, there is this potential for serious injury or death. This is the risk of an active lifestyle. These injuries are potentially possible whether the individual is aware of the risk or not. Patrons can not be protected from injury when their own behavior puts them at risk. Because a person goes into the water head first, it is assumed that there is this potential for injury because its severity can be catastrophic. Studies indicate this by including the words "only under slightly different circumstances". Back in the late seventies, I argued that maybe it has this potential but the statistics do not verify that. The words, "potential for injury", are being used to rationalize many things but in reality, the diving boards and the diving envelope in most Residential pools are a lot different than they are in Municipal swimming pools. Again, no distinction is being made between the two. One is definitely a lot safer than the other is and no one has made a reference to that fact. Until that difference is clearly made, Residential pool and shallow water injuries will continue to cloud the issues faced by the Municipal pool owners/operators.Answers?
THE QUEST