Underwater cameras save drowning girl
By Marc Perton 
posted August 31st 2005 2:02PM
posted August 31st 2005 2:02PM
A 10-year-old girl in Bangor, Wales, was saved from drowning when
she blacked out in a swimming pool, after a set of computer-linked underwater cameras alerted lifeguards. The Poseidon
system, currently installed in eight U.K. pools, and over two dozen in the U.S., uses a series of overhead and
underwater cameras to track movement in a pool. When a swimmer disappears beneath the surface, software triggers an
alert, which can help a lifeguard reach the victim more quickly. In this case, the computer issued an alert within 10
seconds after the girl, who was swimming in the deep end of a 12-foot deep pool, sank to the bottom. Of course, the
system is no substitute for lifeguards — or for parents keeping an eye on their kids.
what about people like me who can hold their breath for a long time and regularly go to the bottom of the pool and lie still. Being still makes it easier to stay under longer. There would be many false alarms if i swam in one of those pools
I think that fact that it saved one life outweighs that tiny insignificant problem.
I guess you'd have to turn off the cameras during the underwater Monopoly competitions, (http://www.divester.com/2005/08/13/more-unusual-scuba-related-activities/).
#1 In a regular pool, you might still scare the lifeguard into thinking you're dead, so I think you're still limited in your underwater standing still without the cameras. I wonder if the people in the pool hear any alarm? Maybe that would scare you into moving again...
What are the bets that every bloody kid in North Wales will try to stay as still as they can in the water to see if they can set the alarm off.
The tech is motion tracking; but underwater and without shiny balls on the swimmers, they sponsored the UK Lifesaving championships a few years ago www.rlss.org.uk and i had teh chance to see a demo of it whilst i was there. It tracks people as they swim around the pool and watches what you are up to.
It only alerts the lifeguards as to the problem so sitting on the bottom of the pool might trigger an alert, but it alerts the "professional" as to the problem and they can evaluate it doesnt save you itself. Im guessing someone drowning on the whole will make differant movements to someone who isnt. I think it did collision detection ; but i cant remember
I heard they were going to do a pool intrusion system as well; so if someone sneaks into the pool at night it will do something about it (call the police, you etc)
Posted Aug 31, 2005, 2:29 PM ET by Rick James
"What are the bets that every bloody kid in North Wales [...]"
Well if they're at all bloody then I hope the lifeguard notices them anyways. I mean with the Jaws music playing in all its hard to miss bloody kids.
"for parents keeping an eye on their kids"
How dare you blame the parents. Don't you know it's everything/everyone else's fault.
I agree with Poolshark, it's worth it if it saves at least one life.
But I also believe in Darwinism. If someone cracks their head being stupid, then I want a system that can tell the difference and not sound the alarm.....unless it's me, because I act stupid.
Is this close to the ultimate perv job or what? Watching girls swim from below?
Oh wait that was a Hollister "retail specialist..."
This case is very important. I've got my own public waterpool and I want to install cameras like those. Do you know, how much are they cost?
Alexander, if you click the READ link, it gives you the full article, which says a Poseidon costs GBP65,000 - or about $125,000.
Moreover, there are a lot more of these installed globally than the post indicates (http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/sites.html).
Nice to hear that automatic accidents detection via video analysis is gaining ground. What a dull job it is, perfect for computer workhorses.
A report like this is will accelerate it (#10 :-) ) but it currently feels too complicated and expensive "computer-linked underwater cameras".
In many countries employing two full-time divers will probably be much cheaper ;-).
125k? damn! That is some expensive stuff! Doesn't seem to be worth it.
How much to hire someone to just sit and watch other cameras (also not free) for the entire day each day the pool is open? I see recovery of $125K pretty quickly.
Drowning doesn't kill people; the Government Does.
I think I remember reading an article earlier about a perverted security guard getting off on women swimming in the pool with one of these cameras. Not sure though, I could be mistaken. Oh well, safety for privacy is the name of the game.
Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but what happened to the lifeguard? What was he doing that he couldn't see a girl drowning? Maybe we should replace him with a robot.
The lifeguard was a she. The news article described the pool as very busy and noisy and an unusually large deep end; also large pane windows in the facility cause a lot of glare on the water on summer afternoons.
The argument is that a lifeguard could probably notice the drowning girl in a minute or two, but this system detected her in 10 seconds.
I'm a lifeguard (haven't yet had to save anybody) and if none of the lifeguards watching a pool can spot a drowning victim in under 30 seconds there are too many people in the pool for the number of lifeguards watching. If you take two minutes to spot an unconsious drowner, you've failed miserably. 3 minutes without oxygen causes permenant brain damage. It is harder to determine if someone is a passive drowner than an active drowner (flailing and submerging) because kids doing the "dead man's float" look exactly like they're drowning, so you have to watch for a few seconds to make sure they're alive. Any guard failing to spot an active drowning victim in about 10 seconds has failed horribly.
It all depends on if the lifeguard would have detected the kid and saved her anyway, in which case the system is not worth it.
I propose they should experiment this for a few years first, where the system does detect the drowning person, but does not inform the life guard, but wait and see if he can figure out.
Nice technologie ! If it safes life its a plus. Though it might have some troubel with people who can hold their breath a long time.
Being a lifeguard looks to be the way to go..
Now you have something to look at in between making out with hot chicks that're halfway dead.
evan, most kids doing "dead man's float as far as ive been able to tell are just doing it for absolutely no reason. as far as a passive drowning victim they do not become horizontal and float like a corspe. the reason it is called the dead mans float is because after 1 to 2 weeks the corspe will rise to the surface of the water due to the expansion of the gases in the body from the process of decomposition and the body will rise to the top. when you have a passive drowning victim whos lungs are beginning to fill with water the body will start to sink to the bottom of the pool. Go in a pool, take a full breath in, and you'll stay afloat, let it out and you sink. simple as that. I just think that whole system is a bit expensive for the amount of money that it is costing, hire another lifeguard on the other side of the pool, one cheaper (unfortunatly, i need the money), and more effective in my opinion.