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

[doctormike]

I would not intrervien in either. Im not sure the sceneros you suggest could happen. Both suggest that you have stopped to talk to them. so #2 couldnt happen as far as "you overheard". If you did only overheard you wouldnt know that they were recent certifides. #1 is not an uncommon situation. solo without a pony or isolated doubles. #2 may be ones first exposure to low visibility with fer of seperation, and the other says just stick with me. I think that if anyone approached me I would wonder who they were and to show me thier scubapolice badge or move on. You cant save people from themselves. Some just resent people butting in.

Yeah, it was more of an ethical thought experiment than a legal deposition about a specific case. The point is that for this made up scenario, you answer as it is presented.

My point is that solo diving has this reputation as being an extremely dangerous type of diving, yet very common scenarios that we see people doing every day are possibly far more dangerous (like #2). I mean, most open water instructors that you see are not only solo diving without a redundant gas supply or solo card, but solo diving with someone who might increase their potential risk.

Yes, there are situations where a buddy can make a big difference, but those are less common in no-stop, no-overhead, low-entanglement-risk, relatively shallow dives. At that point, you need to realistically assess (1) the chance of catastrophic gas loss or severe entanglement, (2) the solo diver's ability to deal with either of those events, and (3) the risk posed by an inexperienced buddy.

So if your reason for intervening with a solo diver is that he or she was about to do something that you considered incredibly dangerous, and you couldn't live with yourself if you didn't try to stop them, then why wouldn't you have the same reaction to a far more dangerous situation?

---------- Post added July 8th, 2014 at 07:48 AM ----------

I think you misunderstood the Godwin's Law reference.

No one's calling you a Nazi, they're just pointing out that not telling someone they broke a property owner's rule is NOTHING like not intervening to prevent a child from being sexually assaulted. It's the internet's way of saying that they don't appreciate hyperbolic comparisons.

What Brandon said.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Bob - I usually see your point of view - on this one I don't... It is too easy to play what if games... In my opinion the OP is playing a game with this thread to provoke responses.

What if the situation was in the open ocean - would it make any difference? Is the dividing line the property owner? Would the same folks that want to make an issue here go up to a solo diver doing the same dive but a beach dive - if so - I say MYOB.

Actually I didn't express a point of view ... I asked a question, and gave some context around why it's worth considering. The question wasn't meant to express a position ... it was meant to invoke a conversation about perspectives.

My point of view (what I would have done in this particular case) was expressed in my earlier reply ... I'd politely point out the rules and leave it at that, assuming the person was adult enough to make his own choices.

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.

We, the scuba diving community, are a self-regulated entity. We can either choose to keep it that way by policing ourselves ... or we can "MYOB", allow the few who just can't or won't behave within reasonable limits to do stupid things, and then complain when some authority ... be it government or the private owners of our playgrounds ... decide that they need to impose stricter rules on us in order to moderate the behavior of the few. We see this happening in every aspect of our lives. Scuba diving is one of the few things left where we don't constantly have someone hovering over our shoulder telling us what to do all the time. Personally, I'd like to keep it that way. But the only way that's going to happen is if we act as a community to keep those few outliers of reasonable behavior from doing outrageous things that will inevitably impact the rules for everyone.

My question was simply this ... at what point does someone else's behavior become your business simply because it will eventually impact what you can do and how you can do it?

I think that's a reasonable question to ask ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[NAM001]

Diving without a redundant air supply is not a clear and present danger. Its just not a smart move. That is my point. I don't intervien for stupidity, but i would for a clear imediate danger. Neither of the examples given presented an imediate danger. Anything either of these examples would have done should not lead anyone to think that if they dont but in they wont come back up. There is very little that should cause any one to involve themselves with someone others diving. Next you are right that solo does have the reputation fo being dangerous. There is a bid difference in solo at 100+ ft at night, and solo in much safer conditions. As danger goes, so does buddy diving. There has always been the problem with some techies who believe there is no difference to any dive, that they are all the same. I can guarentee that if one came up to me and started talking about the potential risk of only taking one light on a day dive in a shallow body of water, I would not receive his comments well at all as a new or experienced diver. At this point one must consider whether they are really solo or not even with a buddy.

Yeah, it was more of an ethical thought experiment than a legal deposition about a specific case. The point is that for this made up scenario, you answer as it is presented.

My point is that solo diving has this reputation as being an extremely dangerous type of diving, yet very common scenarios that we see people doing every day are possibly far more dangerous (like #2). I mean, most open water instructors that you see are not only solo diving without a redundant gas supply or solo card, but solo diving with someone who might increase their potential risk.

Yes, there are situations where a buddy can make a big difference, but those are less common in no-stop, no-overhead, low-entanglement-risk, relatively shallow dives. At that point, you need to realistically assess (1) the chance of catastrophic gas loss or severe entanglement, (2) the solo diver's ability to deal with either of those events, and (3) the risk posed by an inexperienced buddy.

So if your reason for intervening with a solo diver is that he or she was about to do something that you considered incredibly dangerous, and you couldn't live with yourself if you didn't try to stop them, then why wouldn't you have the same reaction to a far more dangerous situation?

---------- Post added July 8th, 2014 at 07:48 AM ----------



What Brandon said.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Wow, that is a little harsh for what is basically an etiquette question...

It's more than a little harsh ... it's a violation of the rules for posting in this forum.

Please note: This forum has special rules. This forum is intended to be a very friendly, "flame free zone" where divers of any skill level may ask questions about basic scuba topics without fear of being accosted. Please show respect and courtesy at all times. Remember that the inquirer is looking for answers that they can understand. This is a learning zone and consequently, any off-topic or overly harsh responses will be removed.

Making disparaging comments about the person or the motives of the person rather than the content of what they posted arguably falls under the category of "being accosted" ... and it's certainly not friendly, respectful or courteous. And it's an example of exactly what I was talking about earlier ... why do we even need those rules? And what, if anything, do we do about people who insist on violating them anyway?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[doctormike]

Diving without a redundant air supply is not a clear and present danger. Its just not a smart move. That is my point. I don't intervien for stupidity, but i would for a clear imediate danger. Neither of the examples given presented an imediate danger. Anything either of these examples would have done should not lead anyone to think that if they dont but in they wont come back up.

Right, and with all of these hypotheticals, the devil is always in the details. My buddy (an OW instructor, tech and cave certified) just did a working dive (video shoot) to 170 feet on air off the coast. Should I have intervened? Is he in more or less danger than the OPs solo diver? Dunno, as with most of theses cases "it all depends". So that's why I posted MY hypothetical, to get people to realize that there is nothing unique - nothing qualitatively different - about the risk that we assume when we solo dive.

---------- Post added July 8th, 2014 at 08:47 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.

... at what point does someone else's behavior become your business simply because it will eventually impact what you can do and how you can do it?

I think that's a reasonable question to ask ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Exactly, and the classic example of this are seat belt and helmet laws. It is certainly not unprecedented for a government to step in when it sees dangerous activity, even when that activity primarily impacts on those who chose to engage in risky behavior.

 

[DivemasterDennis]

I would just add that some dive site rule violations I would point out without hesitation, including out of bounds, absence of dive flag, wildlife encounter violations, and maybe some others. I do not "jump ugly" with the violater, I just inform them of the rule and possible penalty and tell them I just want to avoid them getting a fine or other sanctions. Nearly all are appreciateive, and it is usually a case of "I didn't know." The solo diver issue is less clear. I like the discussion above about engaing in a breif conversation, but I probably would not have "tattled" on this diver not done anything to disuade him absent a clearly observable substantial and imminent safety issue.
DivemasterDennis

 

[PhatD1ver]

OK, you are at the shore of a dive quarry. It's a nice day, but water temperatures are in the high 40s on the platform. Visibility is around 5-10 feet. Next to you, you see:

1) An experienced cold water diver in a dry suit. He is planning a no-stop solo dive in a non-overhead environment to CESA depths with a single tank and no redundant gas supply.

2) A couple wearing wetsuits. Both recently certified, both fumbling with their equipment, trying to set up their gear. You overhear one say to the other "just stick with me, and everything will be fine, stop WORRYING so much!".


Which diver(s) do you approach? Which ones are at greater risk? Leaving aside the legal implications of the quarry operators liability, rules, and future access, which one are you going to feel worse about if there its an accident?

i don't know which one i approach, but i definitely give the local S&R team a call and tell them they are going to be needed anyway, so why not come out for a training dive.

 

[cb5150]

For those who say MYOB ... what if you knew an accident on his part would likely result in you and every other diver losing access to the site? Would that make it YOB?

That's an issue that cave divers have been dealing with for decades ... and they have lost access to several dive sites as a result. In some cases, the owner decided it wasn't worth the risk and simply dynamited the access ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Nope, wouldn't change my mind. And...I think you're "adding" to the initial scenario.

This is simply one of those SB questions where there is no RIGHT or WRONG answer.

Split-Fins or Paddle Fins?
BP/W or recreational BCD?
Mask defogger or Spit?
Wetsuit or Drysuit?
Donate primary or donate alternate?
Ford or Chevy?
Sweet tea or Unsweet tea?
Tip or don't tip?

One thing IS certain though....we should all be somewhere diving instead of reading or posting responses!

 

[NAM001]

Doc you just made my point. The examples given had nthing to do with going to 170 ft on air. it was with in CESA depth without a pony bottle for one example and the other was 2 supposed new divers certainly not doing that kind of dive. I would say that for the examples if going to that depth in the configurations cited would most likely a high probility of things gong south. This is exactly the type of concerns I referenced of when I said there are those who see all dives being the same, that can not find difference between a 30 ft dive and now the 170 ft dive. They are different dives that present different levels of danger that REQUIRE out of NECESSITY NOT PROTOCOL to have certain safeguards in order to complete a dive. There is no devil is in the details. I am one that firmly believes that when you dive with a new diver that you are diving solo but with someone else present. And with that in mind I would never insist that when ever doing this, a 3rd BUDDY to ballance things out must be present because of the devil in the details. Shallow lakes and such is where new divers do thier real learning on how to deal with the devil that lerks within. I would never interfere with that learning process. Deeper more complicated dives is where the devil claims his prise and can do so from a divers foundation of no experience. To take on the property owners site protection rule enforcement as a colateral responsibility when it involves non threat issues should never be the concern of the individual diver. I could tell you of sites that do not allow compressors on the property. Thier reasoning is that they say liability because no one can prove where the air came from. (what if, what if, what if) We all know that the reason is that with a compressor the shop cant SELL air. Now If I saw such going on and had no reason to believe that this divers compressor was filling shop rental tanks that I or someone else might be renting at a later time, should I have an obligation to tattle to the owners. I say no, I know there are others who would say yes TO PROTECT THE SITE. No where in my vaiver do I agree to take on police actions for the owners, my safety concerns never have anything to do with the site only other divers safety. Oh I just thought of 1 other time I talked to a group of divers. It was when the exit ladder was broke and missing so you couldnt get out of the water without possibility of cutting your self. I told them moved on and informed the owners of the broken ladder, not the divers using it, when I left.






impacts on those who chose to engage in risky behavior.[/QUOTE]

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I am one that firmly believes that when you dive with a new diver that you are diving solo but with someone else present.

Not necessarily so ... and it's an assumption that doesn't take anything about that diver into consideration.

FWIW - I've known, and trained, some divers I would inherently trust as a dive buddy far more than some old-timers I've known. Being a good buddy has less to do with experience than it does attitude and habits.

Much the same can be said about the scenario posited in the initial post. You can't tell much, really, about a diver by looking at him. And you can't tell much about how safe he's likely to be by the gear he's using. Having a pony bottle is only worthwhile if you have the presence of mind (and the ability) to deploy it in a timely manner in an emergency. I once dived with a fellow who told me his solo strategy was to dive until his main tank runs OOA, then switch to the pony and come in. I'm sure he wasn't trained that way ... but even after I explained to him why that wasn't a very good idea he continued to not see anything wrong with it. Divers like that can't be reasoned with ... and it's best just to stay away from them and let Darwin sort it out.

The problem with people like that is that they aren't just a danger to themselves ... but to those around them. And you don't have to be someone's dive buddy to be accosted by them once they put themselves in a position to discover that they're not nearly as well-prepared for an emergency as they thought they were.

So no ... give me the new diver who paid attention to his training, and who is working hard to improve any time over the older hand who thinks he's got it all figured out and routinely cuts corners. Chances are pretty good that even in an emergency, the former will be better prepared to think their way through the emergency without creating an even bigger problem. A good attitude frequently trumps a good number of dives in that respect ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)