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

[Dr. Lecter]

Of course the public elected it, I didn't forget it. What are the alternatives? Let the diver rot in there? Wait until the relatives pay for the recovery? (I'm assuming the diver is dead - since nobody paid for the helicopter/car/rescuer's equipment/training) Wait until the volunteers pull him/her out? Place a sign "if you find a dead diver, please call this number"?

Those are all equally-valid options in terms of your prior argument that because the public bore the cost of screwups, it had some kind of moral right to control the activity. If you didn't forget nobody forced the public to bear that cost, then you were simply being disingenuous by claiming that because they had to do something they received a concomitant moral authority to regulate to reduce costs it had to bear.

And we must be talking about moral obligations and authority, because there's zero question that a state or locality has the legal authority to do whatever it wants with SCUBA diving (at least in the US). The general police powers entrusted to such governments allow them to set whatever regulations on the activity they want--regardless of whether they're paying for cleanups on aisle 130'--or simply ban it outright.

 

[doctormike]

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."

Slippery slope argument. As I said: "But I agree, those types of regulations should be carefully considered and applied very sparingly."

All laws infringe on personal freedom. The project of civilization involves figuring out where to draw that line.

 

[mrdre]

I don't know where you live, but out here fire and rescue get paid regardless of whether or not they get out of the station.

You might get me on your side if I got my tax money back when the estate is charged for the rescue, but what are the chances of that. If you want privatize public services, do it to all of them, don't penalize just the people you don't agree with.


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

Actually, you are not paying HIGHER taxes. *Hypothetically* if there were more accidents, then more rescue would be required, and then you would be taxed higher. I'm talking hypothetically. If you had a choice: pay less taxes, but have some rules that would (hypothetically) reduce accidents or pay higher tax, but the divers would have their "freedom". What would be your choice?

---------- Post added July 11th, 2014 at 08:32 PM ----------

Those are all equally-valid options in terms of your prior argument that because the public bore the cost of screwups, it had some kind of moral right to control the activity. If you didn't forget nobody forced the public to bear that cost, then you were simply being disingenuous by claiming that because they had to do something they received a concomitant moral authority to regulate to reduce costs it had to bear. ...

I'm not forgetting that. The public CHOSE that. All the laws and rules are public's choices. There is always a line that needs to be drawn between the personal liberty and public's interests.

But in general, trust me, I'm most of the time on the side which fights against the rules. I believe the US have a lot of rules and regulations that go way too far. The state often tries to babysit its citizens way too much. I'm just talking hypothetically here.

 

[NAM001]

I am sure different states tax differently. Here it is based on your zoning and property value. There are some private housing that is in business zoneing and thier tax's are sky high. My soning is like 2.3% and business is like 5-8% Some got exemptions as they were they existed before they redrew the zone lines. But then where i live your liability car ins is determined by the county you live in not the address. Either way fire and rescue will always get paid. There will also be a follow up as to what pot they get paid from. county city or customer. hERE YOU GET A AMBULANCE RIDE AND THE 1500.00 BILL COMES TO OU CAUSE THERE IS NO PUBLILC rescue in the tax system.. it is volunteer. At one time you could pay 500 a year to the volunteer system and be covered for the year kind of like an ins policy. When my wife had one called for her, the meat wagon did nothing but sign a paper saying she was dead and because it was the meat wagon, the bill was an 1800 usd bill. YEP 1800 to certify there was no pulse and release to the mortuary.

 

[matt_w]

What it would make my business is the far bigger problem of natural selection ever leading to loss of access. You want to fight the nanny state battle because 'well, that's just the way it is', go right ahead. You're really just making it worse--but maybe your cave is what matters most. IDGAF.

This thread and what Bob is discussing has nothing to do with a nanny state. A nanny state passages laws that only protect individuals from themselves. In these cases you have private property owners passing laws to protect themselves.

If someone dies in your quarry or your cave, there is a 110% chance you will be sued by someone. Having rules you think will help prevent deaths and possibly offer legal protection is certainly a property owners right. They don't have to let you dive in their quarry and they don't have to leg you use their land to get I to a spring.

Nanny states have nothing at all to do with this topic.

 

[Dan G]

This thread and what Bob is discussing has nothing to do with a nanny state. A nanny state passages laws that only protect individuals from themselves. In these cases you have private property owners passing laws to protect themselves.

If someone dies in your quarry or your cave, there is a 110% chance you will be sued by someone. Having rules you think will help prevent deaths and possibly offer legal protection is certainly a property owners right. They don't have to let you dive in their quarry and they don't have to leg you use their land to get I to a spring.

Nanny states have nothing at all to do with this topic.

In fact, having a fellow divers educating and informing each other is the opposite of a nanny state.

 

[DaleC]

Except it would appear there is very little educating being done for the pro solo side. Would the OP feel better if the offending diver told them they thought the rules were stupid and childish in nature?

Who is evaluating divers to see if they have the basic skills necessary for survival. Who is insisting on demonstrations of ability to ditch weight. Who is ensuring new divers do not violate the limits of their certification. Who is demanding proper buddy protocols behavior. Who is insisting group diving not be allowed as it is less safe than dedicated buddy teams. All of which contribute to diver injury/death more than dedicated solo diving.

What it sounds like is one form of diving being unduly regulated compared to it's counterparts. That someone chooses to ignore such biased rules is not surprising.

 

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Over the years I have tried to offer unsolicited advices to divers, typically right before a brain fart. There seems to least a 50% chance I simply don't understand their issues and I am making a fool of myself. That is after close to 500 dives and being a pretty good (in my own humble opinion) diver. Problem is good divers do not equal good instructors, we tend see things only from our own very narrow perspective or almost as bad, the perspective of our training agency.

If you see someone really ready to hurt themselves or someone else, by all means say something. Complaining to someone (or worse tattling) just because someone is "breaking the rules" should be left behind in the 3rd grade.

 

[TONY CHANEY]

Except it would appear there is very little educating being done for the pro solo side. Would the OP feel better if the offending diver told them they thought the rules were stupid and childish in nature?

Who is evaluating divers to see if they have the basic skills necessary for survival. Who is insisting on demonstrations of ability to ditch weight. Who is ensuring new divers do not violate the limits of their certification. Who is demanding proper buddy protocols behavior. Who is insisting group diving not be allowed as it is less safe than dedicated buddy teams. All of which contribute to diver injury/death more than dedicated solo diving.

What it sounds like is one form of diving being unduly regulated compared to it's counterparts. That someone chooses to ignore such biased rules is not surprising.

There is a very large amount education being provided to the solo side to the point that it is no longer being treated as a "down low" conversation. There is a certification program also available.

If the diver feels the rules are stupid and childish in nature then the diver simply does not have to dive at that site. You go to a site and follow the rules, it is really just that simple.

As for as, "Who is evaluating divers to see if they have the basic skills necessary for survival. Who is insisting on demonstrations of ability to ditch weight?" Their instructor prior to being certified. Nobody rides with you ever day to ensure that you can still drive a car.

Who is ensuring new divers do not violate the limits of their certification? Mainly everyone in cave diving to include the park rangers. i.e. you want to dive Ginnie springs Devils Ear or Eye, you will have to show proof of training. With DPV more proof is required. You want to dive many of the Fl state caves on parks, the park ranger looks for a certification card on your dash to include a buddy. There are many other examples. You really do not have a valid point when comparing deaths related to teams or solo due to the fact that more dive with a buddy / group than solo so it should be plain to see that there will be more deaths with buddies / groups than solo.

So if the owner said that you have to be certified to dive and a person was not certified even open water then you would be OK with that? Look at the death of the father and son at Eagles' Nest.


I am all for solo diving and rather enjoy it but the rules are the rules and they are not put into place for you to decide which ones to follow and which ones to ignore.

And yes I have been corrected for my mistakes before and felt no ill feeling toward the ones that pointed it out to me.

 

[DaleC]

We are talking a quarry and not a cave right?

In a sense I agree with the sentiment that if one does not like the rules don't dive there, but that's because I have the luxury of being able to do so. I'm not sure, but it seems others live in areas where the choices are limited to privately owned properties. To me, the whole notion of diving in controlled situations like that is fairly intolerable.

That being said, I think unreasonable rules get broken by reasonable people all the time, as a short drive on any road will show. Try doing the actual posted limit sometime.

In many respects, I find the whole dive industry to be an unsavory place where every person who controls an asset is allowed to lord it over others in a completely arbitrary fashion. "I won't fill 6351 Al, I won't fill AL over 20 years old, I won't fill any tank over 20 years old, You need a green and yellow sticker on your tank, You need a drysuit cert to dive, No gloves allowed, Solo divers need to file a dive plan..." That, plus the puffed up arrogance of owners and instructors who stroke their petty egos via their cloistered, dependent customers/students makes me go yeeckk.

I dive for a sense of freedom, not to feel controlled by some other persons ego/anxiety. Anything that allows that should be avoided like the plague.