Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Never but lakes scare the living sh@t out of me. You are more buoyant in the ocean and the waves usually push you to shore. Lakes are murky with underground hazards. 60 yards is far out for a parent not in a swimsuit standing in shore. If your kid went under it would take you over a minute to swim there and you might lose sight of your child.
OP said 60 feet, not 60 yards.
Honestly can most people imagine or picture in their heads what 60ft or yards looks like? Can most people estimate how many feet away something is?
If so, i have a deficiency I didn’t know other people could do that.
Just imagine how many 6ft tall men would lay end to end in the amount of space.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Never but lakes scare the living sh@t out of me. You are more buoyant in the ocean and the waves usually push you to shore. Lakes are murky with underground hazards. 60 yards is far out for a parent not in a swimsuit standing in shore. If your kid went under it would take you over a minute to swim there and you might lose sight of your child.
OP said 60 feet, not 60 yards.
Honestly can most people imagine or picture in their heads what 60ft or yards looks like? Can most people estimate how many feet away something is?
If so, i have a deficiency I didn’t know other people could do that.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Never but lakes scare the living sh@t out of me. You are more buoyant in the ocean and the waves usually push you to shore. Lakes are murky with underground hazards. 60 yards is far out for a parent not in a swimsuit standing in shore. If your kid went under it would take you over a minute to swim there and you might lose sight of your child.
OP said 60 feet, not 60 yards.
Anonymous wrote:Never but lakes scare the living sh@t out of me. You are more buoyant in the ocean and the waves usually push you to shore. Lakes are murky with underground hazards. 60 yards is far out for a parent not in a swimsuit standing in shore. If your kid went under it would take you over a minute to swim there and you might lose sight of your child.
Anonymous wrote:Most concerning thing to me in this (former lifeguard) is that the parent is watching another kid. That really shouldn’t be happening with a kid in the water. The other factors you mention aren’t as scary to me. If the parent is a good swimmer he/she could be at their kid in 10 seconds.
But, with those caveats I’d say probably 10 years old. If the parent was not distracted I might say 8, if I really knew the kid was a good swimmer.
Anonymous wrote:Most concerning thing to me in this (former lifeguard) is that the parent is watching another kid. That really shouldn’t be happening with a kid in the water. The other factors you mention aren’t as scary to me. If the parent is a good swimmer he/she could be at their kid in 10 seconds.
But, with those caveats I’d say probably 10 years old. If the parent was not distracted I might say 8, if I really knew the kid was a good swimmer.