UNBELIEVABLE: Mum pushes buggy 'half way across estuary' as tide comes in - while three sheep die in quicksands

THE actions of a young mum - who pushed her toddler in a buggy 'half way across' the estuary at Arnside as the tide was coming in - have been described as 'unbelievable'.

The unnamed woman and child walked way out under the railway viaduct at Arnside but either 'ignored or didn't hear' sirens sounding to warn the tide was coming in.

It sparked fears on the shore they would be stranded, surrounded by water and cut off.

A tannoy address calling for the woman to turn back also went 'unheard' so Arnside Coastguard had to dispatch its mobile rescue unit to the scene.

Nigel Capstick, coastguard manager at Arnside, described the incident on Sunday at 5pm as 'unbelievable'.

"The lady was under the viaduct and half way across the estuary with the buggy as the tide was coming in and the second tide siren had sounded. She either didn't hear or ignored the warning."

He stressed that pockets of quicksands in the area are 'extremely severe' at the moment despite the prolonged hot temperatures.

A man and woman were also caught out at Great Crag - or outer rock as some call it - on the Grange-over-Sands side of the bay.

Many walkers wander onto the causeway and end up a mile off shore - oblivious that the tide can silently surround them and cut them off.

Again, the Coastguard had to despatch a rescuer on a jet-ski to warn the couple back to safety.

Three sheep have also died after wandering onto beaches - possibly to find water to drink.

Mr Capstick said the animals have become quickly becoming deadlocked and unable to free themselves before the tide comes in.

Two animals died near Sandside and the other on the other side of the water at Meathop.

Mr Capstick is pleased that people living around the area are remaining alert to the dangers and contacting them.

He also said The Westmorland's Gazette's Safety On The Sands campaign was creating more awareness.

"The positive thing is people are more willing to dial 999 and ask for the Coastguard as we are certainly hearing about incidents we wouldn't have done otherwise," said Mr Capstick.

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:44pm Wed 17 Jul 13

hogheaven says...

What was she thinking, can we get a comment from her to explain the madness?Nigel and team to the rescue again well done.
What was she thinking, can we get a comment from her to explain the madness?Nigel and team to the rescue again well done. hogheaven
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Wed 17 Jul 13

Cas220 says...

I hope the RSPCA will be contacting the owner(s) of the sheep, but I highly doubt it as farmers seem to be immune from neglect charges but there seems to be at least 2 charges here; allowing the animals onto the sands and not providing them with adequate water. As for the woman, well there's no accounting for stupidity!
I hope the RSPCA will be contacting the owner(s) of the sheep, but I highly doubt it as farmers seem to be immune from neglect charges but there seems to be at least 2 charges here; allowing the animals onto the sands and not providing them with adequate water. As for the woman, well there's no accounting for stupidity! Cas220
  • Score: 0

1:56am Thu 18 Jul 13

mesa verde says...

Darwin Awards again. But leave the child at home next time.
Darwin Awards again. But leave the child at home next time. mesa verde
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Thu 18 Jul 13

jazzactivist says...

Could it be that she is genuinely deaf? If not, then there is no excuse for that behaviour, and putting her child at risk too. There are quite a few warning signs around there. It's possible that she thought that because she was crossing under the viaduct that the sand was firm there due to the building construction. Who knows... but it was a stupid and risky thing to do. Perhaps it is time to start charging people for their rescue.

As for the sheep - I agree with Cas220 that there is an animal neglect issue. It's unusually hot, and farmers should be out ensuring that their sheep have enough shade and clean drinking water.
Could it be that she is genuinely deaf? If not, then there is no excuse for that behaviour, and putting her child at risk too. There are quite a few warning signs around there. It's possible that she thought that because she was crossing under the viaduct that the sand was firm there due to the building construction. Who knows... but it was a stupid and risky thing to do. Perhaps it is time to start charging people for their rescue. As for the sheep - I agree with Cas220 that there is an animal neglect issue. It's unusually hot, and farmers should be out ensuring that their sheep have enough shade and clean drinking water. jazzactivist
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Thu 18 Jul 13

Whinfell says...

A sad story.
I am not Brain of Britain but I do wonder about human intelligence sometimes.
How someone could be quite so stupid does make me wonder.
I too have seen sheep walking to the water edge on the estuary recently.
I can't help but think that farmers who don't look after their animals are nothing but downright cruel.
Human Beings.What a mixed up and, in some cases, a pathetic species.
A sad story. I am not Brain of Britain but I do wonder about human intelligence sometimes. How someone could be quite so stupid does make me wonder. I too have seen sheep walking to the water edge on the estuary recently. I can't help but think that farmers who don't look after their animals are nothing but downright cruel. Human Beings.What a mixed up and, in some cases, a pathetic species. Whinfell
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Thu 18 Jul 13

Cas220 says...

You see it's OK because the government will give them a couple of thousand pounds in compensation for each dead animal....and as I said, farmers seem to be immune from any kind of animal cruelty/neglect charges.
You see it's OK because the government will give them a couple of thousand pounds in compensation for each dead animal....and as I said, farmers seem to be immune from any kind of animal cruelty/neglect charges. Cas220
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Thu 18 Jul 13

lakesailor says...

Cas220 wrote:
I hope the RSPCA will be contacting the owner(s) of the sheep, but I highly doubt it as farmers seem to be immune from neglect charges but there seems to be at least 2 charges here; allowing the animals onto the sands and not providing them with adequate water. As for the woman, well there's no accounting for stupidity!
Is it not by design? http://www.booths.co
.uk/seasonal/salt-ma
rsh-lamb/
[quote][p][bold]Cas220[/bold] wrote: I hope the RSPCA will be contacting the owner(s) of the sheep, but I highly doubt it as farmers seem to be immune from neglect charges but there seems to be at least 2 charges here; allowing the animals onto the sands and not providing them with adequate water. As for the woman, well there's no accounting for stupidity![/p][/quote]Is it not by design? http://www.booths.co .uk/seasonal/salt-ma rsh-lamb/ lakesailor
  • Score: 0

10:39pm Thu 18 Jul 13

Pete W. says...

The common denominator here is that the both the young woman and the sheep have small brains.
The common denominator here is that the both the young woman and the sheep have small brains. Pete W.
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Fri 19 Jul 13

jallison says...

So much for all the new warning signs in Arnside.!!

Like I said in the last topic on 'idiots' walking the sands. They need to be 'hit in the pocket' with a fine, or made to pay towards the cost of their rescue.

One reader said charge them £1000 per person for each recovery. Most couldn't or wouldn't pay such a hefty fee.

The local coastguard should have the power to slap say £100.00 fixed penalty notice, and if not paid prosecute them in the magistrates court.

We are extremely lucky to have such a dedicated team of rescuers, who put their own lives at risk, most times because they don't read the tide tables and disregard warning signs.

Nigel Capstick the Arnside coastguard should receive at least an OBE for services to the residents and visitors to Silverdale, Arnside and Sandside.
So much for all the new warning signs in Arnside.!! Like I said in the last topic on 'idiots' walking the sands. They need to be 'hit in the pocket' with a fine, or made to pay towards the cost of their rescue. One reader said charge them £1000 per person for each recovery. Most couldn't or wouldn't pay such a hefty fee. The local coastguard should have the power to slap say £100.00 fixed penalty notice, and if not paid prosecute them in the magistrates court. We are extremely lucky to have such a dedicated team of rescuers, who put their own lives at risk, most times because they don't read the tide tables and disregard warning signs. Nigel Capstick the Arnside coastguard should receive at least an OBE for services to the residents and visitors to Silverdale, Arnside and Sandside. jallison
  • Score: 0

5:24pm Fri 19 Jul 13

jazzactivist says...

It was me to suggested £1000 per person, jallison. I think £1000 is about right, if you add up all the training, volunteer hours, cost of rescue equipment and maintaining it, insurance, risk costs etc. People who are rescued would just have to pay it - either as an instant fee or make arrangements to pay it off. It has to be enough to really put people off going out onto the sands, and enough to cover the cost of the rescue. £100 is really just sweets money, especially if you are on a high from having been rescued from death! I don't think a token amount would be enough of a warning or reprimand to put people off doing it again.

I agree with you that we are so lucky to have such a dedicated rescue team. It is amazing, and it's such a pity that it needs to constantly raise charitable monies to keep it going. Hefty fees for rescue would help pay for it.
It was me to suggested £1000 per person, jallison. I think £1000 is about right, if you add up all the training, volunteer hours, cost of rescue equipment and maintaining it, insurance, risk costs etc. People who are rescued would just have to pay it - either as an instant fee or make arrangements to pay it off. It has to be enough to really put people off going out onto the sands, and enough to cover the cost of the rescue. £100 is really just sweets money, especially if you are on a high from having been rescued from death! I don't think a token amount would be enough of a warning or reprimand to put people off doing it again. I agree with you that we are so lucky to have such a dedicated rescue team. It is amazing, and it's such a pity that it needs to constantly raise charitable monies to keep it going. Hefty fees for rescue would help pay for it. jazzactivist
  • Score: 0

11:37am Sat 20 Jul 13

Spotty Fish says...

"People would just have to pay it off"? How? If they don't happen to have £1000 in their back pocket that they are happy to hand over because they "are on a high", how would they then pay? They would have to be taken to court by the rescue services. This would end up costing more than the money they get back. Honestly jazzactivist, you do has some strange ideas.

It wouldn't matter if the people that do this were threatened with a £100,000 fine and made to dance naked down Arnside Prom! They would still wander on to the sands because they are stupid, don't see the signs, or just think they know better than all the experts. You cannot legislate for the stupidity of some people.
"People would just have to pay it off"? How? If they don't happen to have £1000 in their back pocket that they are happy to hand over because they "are on a high", how would they then pay? They would have to be taken to court by the rescue services. This would end up costing more than the money they get back. Honestly jazzactivist, you do has some strange ideas. It wouldn't matter if the people that do this were threatened with a £100,000 fine and made to dance naked down Arnside Prom! They would still wander on to the sands because they are stupid, don't see the signs, or just think they know better than all the experts. You cannot legislate for the stupidity of some people. Spotty Fish
  • Score: 0

10:35am Sun 21 Jul 13

WheresWanda? says...

Since when has Her Majesty 's Coastguard been a charitable organisation? We, the taxpayer, are paying for it all!

However, we should be grateful that there is dedicated TEAM who are prepared to respond to the increasing number of requests for assistance.
Since when has Her Majesty 's Coastguard been a charitable organisation? We, the taxpayer, are paying for it all! However, we should be grateful that there is dedicated TEAM who are prepared to respond to the increasing number of requests for assistance. WheresWanda?
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Sun 21 Jul 13

jallison says...

Members of the Coastguard Rescue Service are volunteers !!

See this link : http://www.dft.gov.u
k/mca/mcga07-home/em
ergencyresponse/mcga
-searchandrescue/mcg
a-volunteering.htm
Members of the Coastguard Rescue Service are volunteers !! See this link : http://www.dft.gov.u k/mca/mcga07-home/em ergencyresponse/mcga -searchandrescue/mcg a-volunteering.htm jallison
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Sun 21 Jul 13

WheresWanda? says...

You will find that they are paid volunteers on about the minimum wage. And all their equipment is also paid for by the taxpayer...
You will find that they are paid volunteers on about the minimum wage. And all their equipment is also paid for by the taxpayer... WheresWanda?
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Sun 21 Jul 13

jallison says...

They are not paid if you read the link I gave, they only receive travel expenses. From the link I gave above quote:

"The role of a Coastguard Rescue Officer is a voluntary role. Many volunteer Coastguard Rescue Officers do not claim any money, but you are entitled to claim a small reimbursement to compensate you for your expenses incurred in responding to emergencies and for training."

Our nearest full time HM Coastguard
is salaried, but is based in Liverpool, but that is due to close in 2015.

Of course their equipment is paid for by the taxpayer,would you expect them to pay for it themselves.

Many incidents include other volunteers such as RNLI. Most lifeboat crew members are volunteers, who come from all walks of life and give up their time and comfort to save lives at sea.

Like our volunteer coastguards,they respond at a moment's notice when the pagers go off. Crews are regularly called away from their families, their beds and their work, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Their lifesaving work is essential, often difficult and sometimes dangerous.

Not to mention First Responders and the Great Northwest Air Ambulance which receives no Government aid whatsoever, and rely on contributions and fund raising events.

I think you owe all these brave volunteers an apology. And yes I know Air Ambulance staff are paid, but not from the public purse.
They are not paid if you read the link I gave, they only receive travel expenses. From the link I gave above quote: "The role of a Coastguard Rescue Officer is a voluntary role. Many volunteer Coastguard Rescue Officers do not claim any money, but you are entitled to claim a small reimbursement to compensate you for your expenses incurred in responding to emergencies and for training." Our nearest full time HM Coastguard is salaried, but is based in Liverpool, but that is due to close in 2015. Of course their equipment is paid for by the taxpayer,would you expect them to pay for it themselves. Many incidents include other volunteers such as RNLI. Most lifeboat crew members are volunteers, who come from all walks of life and give up their time and comfort to save lives at sea. Like our volunteer coastguards,they respond at a moment's notice when the pagers go off. Crews are regularly called away from their families, their beds and their work, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Their lifesaving work is essential, often difficult and sometimes dangerous. Not to mention First Responders and the Great Northwest Air Ambulance which receives no Government aid whatsoever, and rely on contributions and fund raising events. I think you owe all these brave volunteers an apology. And yes I know Air Ambulance staff are paid, but not from the public purse. jallison
  • Score: 0

2:36pm Sun 21 Jul 13

WheresWanda? says...

They are paid either £6.19 or £7.42 per hour depending on the duty, (the Station Officer is paid more), and are affected by PAYE and National Insurance in the normal manner. The payment however is supposed to reflect out of pocket expenses which is why Coastguard Rescue Officers carry the title of volunteers. You are correct however about the mileage which is either 25p or 40p per mile, which again depends on the duty.

I make no apology for the facts as I have stated them, and if you refer back to my first post, you will find I have already said how grateful I am for the work the local team do...
They are paid either £6.19 or £7.42 per hour depending on the duty, (the Station Officer is paid more), and are affected by PAYE and National Insurance in the normal manner. The payment however is supposed to reflect out of pocket expenses which is why Coastguard Rescue Officers carry the title of volunteers. You are correct however about the mileage which is either 25p or 40p per mile, which again depends on the duty. I make no apology for the facts as I have stated them, and if you refer back to my first post, you will find I have already said how grateful I am for the work the local team do... WheresWanda?
  • Score: 0

6:05pm Sun 21 Jul 13

jazzactivist says...

It doesn't matter if the rescuers are volunteers, as any organisation that 'employs' volunteers to do its work still has to pay for all their training, insurance, equipment etc. The money may come out of public coffers, but only the actual labour of the volunteers is free. It seems a shame that such valuable members of society have to spend some of their volunteering time rattling tins and running / appearing at fundraising events when a ready source of some income could be available through rescue fees, and it would act as a deterrent

The people who are rescued would have to pay the rescue fee in exactly the same way as we all pay any other fines or bills, Spotty Fish - you pay by bank transfer or credit card, or set up a monthly direct debit. There would be no need to pursue people through the courts, as only the most mean spirited person would be rescued and not be willing to pay for being saved to live another day. The majority would be grateful and cough up to help the rescue service - I know I would.
It doesn't matter if the rescuers are volunteers, as any organisation that 'employs' volunteers to do its work still has to pay for all their training, insurance, equipment etc. The money may come out of public coffers, but only the actual labour of the volunteers is free. It seems a shame that such valuable members of society have to spend some of their volunteering time rattling tins and running / appearing at fundraising events when a ready source of some income could be available through rescue fees, and it would act as a deterrent The people who are rescued would have to pay the rescue fee in exactly the same way as we all pay any other fines or bills, Spotty Fish - you pay by bank transfer or credit card, or set up a monthly direct debit. There would be no need to pursue people through the courts, as only the most mean spirited person would be rescued and not be willing to pay for being saved to live another day. The majority would be grateful and cough up to help the rescue service - I know I would. jazzactivist
  • Score: 1

11:12am Mon 22 Jul 13

jallison says...

I repeat from the link I provided:

"The role of a Coastguard Rescue Officer is a voluntary role. Many volunteer Coastguard Rescue Officers do not claim any money, but you are entitled to claim a small reimbursement to compensate you for your expenses incurred in responding to emergencies and for training."

Provide a link for readers when you state " They are paid either £6.19 or £7.42 per hour depending on the duty, (the Station Officer is paid more), and are affected by PAYE and National Insurance in the normal manner."
I repeat from the link I provided: "The role of a Coastguard Rescue Officer is a voluntary role. Many volunteer Coastguard Rescue Officers do not claim any money, but you are entitled to claim a small reimbursement to compensate you for your expenses incurred in responding to emergencies and for training." Provide a link for readers when you state " They are paid either £6.19 or £7.42 per hour depending on the duty, (the Station Officer is paid more), and are affected by PAYE and National Insurance in the normal manner." jallison
  • Score: 1

6:02pm Mon 22 Jul 13

snuggle-bunny says...

mountain rescue and cave rescue dont get any expenses at all- mind you I could be wrong
mountain rescue and cave rescue dont get any expenses at all- mind you I could be wrong snuggle-bunny
  • Score: 0

7:13pm Fri 26 Jul 13

WheresWanda? says...

The information regarding volunteer coastguard payment was from an actual payslip from March 2013 and not from the MCA website. The individual whose payroll it was is a volunteer Coastguard Rescue Officer within an operational Coastguard Rescue Team.
The information regarding volunteer coastguard payment was from an actual payslip from March 2013 and not from the MCA website. The individual whose payroll it was is a volunteer Coastguard Rescue Officer within an operational Coastguard Rescue Team. WheresWanda?
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree