How to handle violation of a dive site rules (Solo Diving)

[Bob DBF]

Why is that? The site in question here allows solo diving,.... as long as the rules are followed. Is that too much to ask? Apparently for some it is.

I was addressing your concerns with the abilities of the diver, depth, how benign the site is, as well as the possibility of accident and death in the quarry.

You are the land owner, it's your rules & your liability in the end. You run your business the way you see fit & I am sure the owners of this quarry run it the way THEY see fit.The site here in question does allow solo diving if certain criteria are met, if they are not, then there are ways, without violating the rules, to do it.

I am not the land owner, I'm just be another schmuck paying to dive. For the most part I follow the rules of which I'm aware. As I said, I would politely inform the diver of the rules, as I understand them, in case he didn't know. I don't believe the situation rises to the standard I need to become more involved. If the owner wants more control of the situation, then he should put in place better security than he has.

Of course the owner may know this diver is violating the rule and doesn't enforce it. I've had that happen to me in other venues, sometimes it depends on who you are.



Bob
----------------
I may be old, but I'm not dead yet.

 

[scubastingray]

Of course the owner may know this diver is violating the rule and doesn't enforce it. I've had that happen to me in other venues, sometimes it depends on who you are.

I think that's a very good point. In this day and age of litigation, a lot of rules may be required by insurance/ to deny claims. Well it would be erroneous to assume land owners don't care if you violate the rules, it is likely some are there to cover their asses in case of lawsuits.

 

[kombiguy]

Do you not think that the ones putting their life at risk in recoverying the body deserves a little more respect that you care to give.

I don't think risking one's life to recover a piece of meat is necessarily deserving of respect. I'm not even sure risking a life to recover a dead body is even all that smart.

---------- Post added July 11th, 2014 at 10:01 AM ----------

But there is another side to that coin ... the people who are saying "mind your own business" and complaining about the "nanny state" aren't considering that by minding your own business you sometimes are contributing to the nanny state. Nanny states come about when people refuse to moderate their behavior within reasonable limits ... and therefore require some authority to moderate it for them. The problem is that the moderation then applies not just to those who refuse to act reasonably ... but to everyone.

That assumes that one believes that the government has the duty to protect one from one's self. What if, instead of government intervention, the government just let things happen. If I were stupid enough to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or dive beyond my capabilities, why is that necessarily any of the government's concern?

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I don't think risking one's life to recover a piece of meat is necessarily deserving of respect. I'm not even sure risking a life to recover a dead body is even all that smart.

... you might feel differently if it was your kid or your wife.

I have a great deal of respect for the people who do this type of work. They don't generally get paid for it, and they're doing it primarily so that family members can get some closure ... if you don't understand what that's like, note that the father of the kid who was lost in Vortex is still posting on this forum two years after the fact ... and he don't even dive.

Besides that, these people are usually lost in places where other people dive ... and leaving a body in a cave or other place for people to dive past might be a good reminder of the risks involved, but it's generally better for those other divers to get it out of there ... after a while it makes the water taste like rotting meat ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[kombiguy]

... you might feel differently if it was your kid or your wife.

Maybe. But I won't risk my life for someone else's emotional problems. "Closure" isn't worth a human life to me. I suppose there are people that will take that risk, though, and more power to them.

 

[doctormike]

What if, instead of government intervention, the government just let things happen. If I were stupid enough to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or dive beyond my capabilities, why is that necessarily any of the government's concern?

The theory behind laws like this is that there are certain societal costs and burdens that people don't have the right to inflict on others - surviving family members, taxpayers, other people buying health insurance, etc... But I agree, those types of regulations should be carefully considered and applied very sparingly.

That having been said, motorcycle helmet laws may actually end up costing society money if they turn victims of fatal accidents into survivors with the need for long term care and financial support. The calculus is unclear.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

... there's always a societal cost when you artificially inhibit the gene pool's ability to clean up after itself ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[kombiguy]

The theory behind laws like this is that there are certain societal costs and burdens that people don't have the right to inflict on others - surviving family members, taxpayers, other people buying health insurance, etc... But I agree, those types of regulations should be carefully considered and applied very sparingly.

That having been said, motorcycle helmet laws may actually end up costing society money if they turn victims of fatal accidents into survivors with the need for long term care and financial support. The calculus is unclear.

Once you allow the "societal cost" to be used as a reason for legislation or regulation, then there is no principled way to stop. Smoking exerts a cost on society. So does McDonalds. If we can ban smoking on the basis of cost, then why not ban cheeseburgers, or alcohol, or skydiving. I believe this is why a lot of people have a problem with the ever-encroaching "nanny state."
I am grateful that, so far, diving has managed to avoid too much government regulation. Although, try diving at the Legare Anchorage sometime!

 

[blinkswiler]

All dive certification agency proclaim the need for dive buddies with good reason. However, once certified, you are on your own and I tell all my students they have to make their own decisions about saftey, dive sites, conditions and the like because NOBODY is responsible for your own safety but YOURSELF (buddy or not). I don't in any way suggest they should dive solo however there is no dive police (thank heavens). Having said that, I too would have suggested for him to join in my merry little group. I've also had inst-buddies that believe in the same-ocean is close enough and so end up solo with a buddy. We followed the rules till we hit the water. Not good.

However as an instructor and diver search and rescue team member, I need the pratice in body recovery.

 

[SeaHorse81]

I like Bob's approach, but if you got pushback from the diver, I'd have considered talking to the site management, and here is why: This is not a public site. It is private property, and has rules. The rules established by the landowner are being broken, and I would assume they are there for a reason. One of the reasons may be that the landowner's insurance will not cover him for any claims made, if the rules are not followed. If the diver were to have an accident or incident, and he or his family sued, the landowner would face horrendous legal costs, even if he eventually won.

Making a dive site available to the public is something we all want to have continue. If landowners perceive unacceptable risks or expenses from doing so, they'll convert the place to a swimming hole or fishing site, and tell the divers to go pound sand. THIS is why I would have said something.

Aside from all the debate about how much you try to save others from themselves, I think this is an important basic point. I hear about dive sites becoming unavailable a lot more often than I hear about new ones opening up.