Individual Rights, and other Myths

[DCBC]

...Others have jokingly implied that even in this very thread. Agencies that promote the rules imply that the consequences for breaking the rules can lead to imminent death and in many cases they're right...

Mossman,

If a diver is incompetent, what rules will absolutely "save him" from imminent death? If the diving training agencies were motivated by increased diver competency, why would some allow the "certification" of non-swimmers (does that make any sense to you?) No matter how you slice it, over the years the minimum standard that is required for certification has taken the plunge! Some may say that the technology has improved (which it has), but the real motivator (imo) has been increased profits. The truth is, that the requirement for someone to be trained today is less than it use to be (increased safety provided by technology). Much of the training undertaken today does not meet my standard, however divers continually get the nod and receive certification without knowing how do do a simple rescue of their buddy. In-fact as far as society is concerned, certification is not required to dive at all (but my apologies, I digress).

Now before someone bends my statements out-of-place, I'm not promoting that divers dive without being trained. To me this is common sense. It's more important to curtail the diving activities of diver's today than it use to be because of their lower level of required general diving knowledge and competence. When you drop the standards, you increase risk. Why is it that there has been little effort to increase these standards? Well today when it comes to quality,the term 'good enough' is prevalent as items have become disposable. There was however a time that computer & TV circuit boards were repaired and not just replaced. Today we live in a disposable society. The result is that many people are satisfied with the minimum and don't see a need to excel at their chosen activity.

 

[Mike Boswell]

See above for NWGratefulDiver re the Maldives. When Grand Cayman says the depth limit is 110'. When Laguna Beach mandates wearing a snorkel. IIRC, one can't dive in France without a current medical, and one can't dive in Greece without a DM and the depth is limited to 30'. Any local government can impose any restrictions it wishes on divers and some of those restrictions impact the experienced diver who might know better.


Others have jokingly implied that even in this very thread. Agencies that promote the rules imply that the consequences for breaking the rules can lead to imminent death and in many cases they're right.

On the other hand, when the DM on my last Cozumel trip took us to a max depth of 137' and I ended up having to do 6 min of mandatory deco at 10', I was very happy that the rules didn't apply.

I have a different take on the scuba rules. I don't view them as my enemy, but as my friend. They are just another tool. Some are a helpful shorthand which enables me to remember things I should remember. Some help me to communicate efficiently with others about plans, expectations, contingencies, making sure we are "on the same page". Some establish agreed-upon limits. Taken together, they help bind scuba divers together by means of a shared "culture". And as with all rules, they were developed as a result of a history of accumulated experience.

It's kind of amazing that I can travel to the far corners of the earth, and get on a dive boat with complete strangers from ten different countries, and a DM with a thick English accent can say "Okay, listen up!" and in a minute or two later we are all jumping into the water, swimming around looking at wonderful, amazing things, negotiating strong currents or swimming single file through "swim-throughs" at 120 feet, and doing it in a relatively coordinated and successful way. We can do that, routinely, with very few glitches, because we are all playing the game by the same rules.

Think about it: You've been on a dive where one guy didn't do his pre-dive check and jumped into the water without his weights, or with his air turned off; You've been with a group and watched as "that guy" left his buddy, took off after a fish, and a DM had to go look for him. I would go on, but you could probably give more examples than I.

 

[Thalassamania]

Let me give an example of the sorts of rules that need to be done away with (this one fortunately was): there was a time when there was a rule in Cayman, supported by the Cayman Watersportsmens' Association and the Cayman Chamber (not to mention both PADI and DAN) against the use of NITROX on the island. Now ... was that a good thing or was that farm animal stupid?

 

[Mike Boswell]

Let me give an example of the sorts of rules that need to be done away with (this one fortunately was): there was a time when there was a rule in Cayman, supported by the Cayman Watersportsmens' Association and the Cayman Chamber (not to mention both PADI and DAN) against the use of NITROX on the island. Now ... was that a good thing or was that farm animal stupid?

Hmmm. I'm guessing it's ....

 

[Avonthediver]

Define reckless manner? you said in your post the

This is a version of the good old American ideal of the rugged individualist exercising his individual liberty, and has strong emotional appeal because it's linked to the successes of American icons like Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Steve Jobs.

in the intrest of not wanting to start an argument scuba is the best of what the human race has to offer as far as just going out and doing it for just the hell of it and serendipitous that it holds keys to medical problems and the like. But just think what the world would be like if Edison, Ford, and Jobs had not taken the risk and step out side of the box?

So let's get real here: If a scuba diver is hurt doing something reckless or stupid, it affects their friends, families, fellow divers, rescue folks, medical folks, insurance folks, dive businesses, and the reputation of the dive community. Do we have the "right" to do that?

YES We DO...You only live once why not do what you want, Just be safe as can be.

 

[Thalassamania]

Define reckless manner? you said in your post the

in the intrest of not wanting to start an argument scuba is the best of what the human race has to offer as far as just going out and doing it for just the hell of it and serendipitous that it holds keys to medical problems and the like. But just think what the world would be like if Edison, Ford, and Jobs had not taken the risk and step out side of the box?



YES We DO...You only live once why not do what you want, Just be safe as can be.

If you think that you have the right to do whatever you want, disregarding the consequences that it may bring, for me, and for many other divers, then we have the right to express our unwillingness to have you behave in such an antisocial fashion. We can only do this by working to bring the full weight of rules, restrictions and laws down on your head in such a fashion so as to protect what we perceive to be our best interests. Is that really the way that it needs to be done? Can you not think of a more cooperative and considerate framework?

Many's the time I've had to deal with the fallout of some yahoos, in love with themselves and the cachet (even pretend) of being UNDERWATER SCIENTISTS, who were completely unqualified, both in a scientific and a diving sense, to undertake a given thing and as a result have either pissed the local inhabitants off, or hurt themselves, or some such, and I've had to clean up the mess, politically, socially and regulatory wise.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Let me give an example of the sorts of rules that need to be done away with (this one fortunately was): there was a time when there was a rule in Cayman, supported by the Cayman Watersportsmens' Association and the Cayman Chamber (not to mention both PADI and DAN) against the use of NITROX on the island. Now ... was that a good thing or was that farm animal stupid?

Cayman's have always had restrictive diving policies. They at one time also prohibited the use of dive computers ... mandated that all divers must dive in a group with a DM both in front and in back of the group ... enforced strict limits on bottom times ... and mandated a maximum two dives per day rule. Anyone violating any of those rules could be booted out of a resort without recourse or refund.

Much of this was driven by DAN's director at the time ... Peter Bennett, as well as by Skin Diving magazine editorials and PADI policies.

What ultimately brought about change was, of course, money ... but it also spawned an international symposium for the purpose of developing standards and (gasp) "rules" defining the acceptable use of nitrox for recreational diving. Those standards and rules form the framework of every agency's nitrox training today. Thal ... weren't you involved in that symposium?? It was before my time, but I'm sure you or someone else here could fill us in more on what it involved. Shortly thereafter, agencies started accepting nitrox use ... and one by one the restrictions fell by the wayside as industry-wide policies were adopted and the dive industry demonstrated that it could "police" itself.

Seems to me like a pretty good example of what I've been saying ... once the "responsibilities" were defined and adopted, the "rights" were a given ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Mike Boswell]

Define reckless manner? you said in your post the

But just think what the world would be like if Edison, Ford, and Jobs had not taken the risk and step out side of the box?

YES We DO...You only live once why not do what you want, Just be safe as can be.

Hi Avonthediver,

"Reckless" means acting impulsively, without thinking about consequences or taking responsibility for the outcome. We are all guilty of that to some degree, and as we get older we (hopefully) learn from our experiences.

Edison, Ford, and Jobs are examples of GOOD individualism: Yes, they took risks, but they thought carefully about the rewards and consequences of their actions.

I know that you CAN dive pretty much any way you want to, and I'm glad that you have that freedom. If you think of it as a "responsibility" rather than a "right", you may give a little more thought to the risks, rewards, and consequences.

Because in truth, when enough people behave recklessly, we all lose our freedoms.

 

[Thalassamania]

Cayman's have always had restrictive diving policies. They at one time also prohibited the use of dive computers ... mandated that all divers must dive in a group with a DM both in front and in back of the group ... enforced strict limits on bottom times ... and mandated a maximum two dives per day rule. Anyone violating any of those rules could be booted out of a resort without recourse or refund.

Much of this was driven by DAN's director at the time ... Peter Bennett, as well as by Skin Diving magazine editorials and PADI policies.

That's why I stopped going there. It was real nice back in the day, I was working in Costa Rica and 'cause I was working for USAID I had to fly PAN AM (does that date me?) down, but I could swap my ticket for LACSA back, and break my trip in Cayman where they landed to refuel. I'd dive mainly with the resort/shop owners and we did some wonderful, very deep, diving. The computer and nitrox things were, I fear, in part, my fault. I took some of the first computers off the line with me and had them in Cayman at the end of my trip. One of the first things that the staff figured out was that with a computer I could stay down too long, working my way up the reef, and upsetting both the boat and the hotel lunch schedules. Nitrox made for the same problem, only worse. It was those schedules that created the initial resistance to both technologies and sent folks scurrying for ex post facto rationales.

What ultimately brought about change was, of course, money ... but it also spawned an international symposium for the purpose of developing standards and (gasp) "rules" defining the acceptable use of nitrox for recreational diving. Those standards and rules form the framework of every agency's nitrox training today. Thal ... weren't you involved in that symposium?? It was before my time, but I'm sure you or someone else here could fill us in more on what it involved. Shortly thereafter, agencies started accepting nitrox use ... and one by one the restrictions fell by the wayside as industry-wide policies were adopted and the dive industry demonstrated that it could "police" itself.

Seems to me like a pretty good example of what I've been saying ... once the "responsibilities" were defined and adopted, the "rights" were a given ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Yes, I was involved, as an Editor for aquaCorps and a university DSO. In fact Bill Hamilton, who chaired it, quoted me by name in his opening statement, saying that it was my opinion (add sarcastic tone of voice) that Nitrox would never catch on because recreational divers could not be expected to master the two critical performance objectives: control your depth and control your bottom time.

The standards that came out of it were, in my opinion, complete and utter BS, what should have been a 30 to 60 minute addition to an entry level course became a separate whole course, primarily due to the ego of the opposition, their need to save face, and their refusal to acknowledge that Nitrox was not really a BFD.

All we have seen since then is NITROX courses become less and less demanding, so that they consume less and less instructor time and shop resources, while the price has gone up and up and up. Suprise, suprise. Quality instructors have turned their Nitrox classes into Gas Planning and Decompression Theory programs, while others have learned to turn on the DVD player and take the money.

 

[temet vince]

...Because in truth, when enough people behave recklessly, we all lose our freedoms.

This is true. There are two sides: You can do anything you want so long as it does not harm someone else (the way it should be), and then there's the fact that if too many people die the cost to society as a whole goes up (crappy, but the USSC believes this way. Seatbelt and motorcycle helmets anyone?).

The fact is, it's a balancing act, with the american ideal on one side and the USSC and it's upholding of "protection" laws on the other. I think the dive industry's doing a pretty good job as a whole.