Safety, how much

[Cacia]

I think it is each person's own decision and I really am offended when people get into my business.

It is really getting to be a big problem too...everybody wants to be in charge of everybody else and they are usually the most vocal and very bent on getting all kinds of legislation passed.

The funny thing? ...some of the states with the most regulations are really like the wild, wild west because they have outdone themselves and can't enforce much of anything.

The "nanny state", thats what my English friends call America.

 

[vladimir]

What entertains me is people who are anal about their safety but are 50 pounds overweight. Forget about the redundancy and the seatbelt, neither one is going to help when that stroke hits.

 

[Rockhound76]

One thing i need to add: While I reserve the right to think anyone who rides a cycle sans helmet is excercising poor judgement, I wholly support their right to do so.

I agree with the sentiment that no adult needs a nanny. I don't care if they're diving, cycling or flying hanggliders (I've done all three.)

Btw, I voluntarily grounded myself from UL flying until my kids get out of college. (But, like diving, it's safety is more dependant on planning and skillset than the it is on the alertness/sobriety of a stranger. I did it more to make my wife happy than to reduce risk.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Following your line of reasoning then the dangers of police, firefighters, the military and other high risk jobs have the same impact on society and should not be career choises. The motivating factor why people chose those occupations may very well be the pleasure and thrill they get from it. Everything I do has a greater or less impact on society.

So you are putting the taking ofprofessional risk in order to save another person's life or property on the same footing as taking risk for personal pleasure? Police and firefighters do a necessary job and get compensated for it. Riding without a helmet does nothing for any one except the rider.

As a surgeon, I was more exposed to HIV and hepatitis than a non-surgeon --- does that make the choice to be a surgeon on a par with the choice to do heroin with dirty needles?

Your argument doesn't make sense. There is not a parity between taking risks as a service to others and taking risks for hedonistic self interest.

 

[Web Monkey]

What entertains me is people who are anal about their safety but are 50 pounds overweight. Forget about the redundancy and the seatbelt, neither one is going to help when that stroke hits.

I've got bad news for you. Skinny people have strokes too.

Terry

 

[Nemrod]

I have owned several aircraft, one of them I built and another I rebuilt. I am rather mechanical and I am an A&P but I digress. I was at a nearby airfield shooting T&Gs and I saw some activity by one of the hangers so I landed to go see what was up. It was a group of skydivers. Listening and observing them I actually heard one of them say something to the effect--SAFETY FIRST---yeah---OK----I think I will stick to flying homemade airplanes and diving with 50 year old regulators. Safety blah, blah, if your safety first them d--- well don't go up in an airplane with the intention of jumping out of it, that would be safety first.

Yes to the OP's question. I think this fascination with "safety first" and "safety always" is some sort of late 20th century societal perversion of human instincts. Between this bizzare safety only "lifestyle" of padded pants and helmets our airbag society forces on us and reckless foolsihness there can be a compromise of reasonable prudence that does not raise safety to the highest esteem at the expense of living.

N

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

I think it is each person's own decision and I really am offended when people get into my business.

It is really getting to be a big problem too...everybody wants to be in charge of everybody else and they are usually the most vocal and very bent on getting all kinds of legislation passed.

The funny thing? ...some of the states with the most regulations are really like the wild, wild west because they have outdone themselves and can't enforce much of anything.

The "nanny state", thats what my English friends call America.

The true meaning of the nanny state is that people expect the government to take care of them. And, because it does, the state gets to tell you what to do. You can't have it both ways. When someone picks up the tab, they get to call the shots.

You see, as I said earlier, if you get hurt, you expect the government to help you ... with social security disablity, with government loans for the college education you no longer can afford for your kids and so on.

Everyone, including the OP, long for the frontier days when we all rode bareback and no one told us how to live our lives. Yes, there was a time like that...and if you fell off the horse, you ended up in the poor house or dead. No social security, no workers' comp, no hang gliding or motorcycle companies to sue.

Face it. Those days are gone.

 

[DaFireMedic]

I agree, make the personal decision, but weigh in all of the factors. I have small children and really do not want them to have to face their fathers death. That's why I sold my street bike (side note: The guy I sold it to killed himself on it 2 years later). However, back when I was single I loved to ride it (although I never told my mom that I had one, or she would have worried herself sick.)

Everything is risk vs gain, from recreation to firefighting decisions. I used to rock climb and race mountain bikes, both of which could be considered risky. But it was the activity that made them fun for me, not the risk, and I did everything that I could to minimize it. Some people are thrill seekers, but I really am not. I climbed, rode mountain bikes, and dive because I love the beautiful surroundings in which I can do these things, and because they were challenging activities which tested ones skill.

The motorcycle however, I rode that for the thrill of the speed, acceleration and carving canyons. Theres nothing like it, but I always, always wore a helmet. I don't think that I would have enjoyed it without one.

 

[Kingpatzer]

I agree that safety can be taken to extremes.

Your motorcycle example is a very poor one as the choice to not wear a helmet, like the choice to not wear a seat belt, has societal costs when you get into an accident that are not your burden.

I've worked in an emergency room in a helmet-optional state.

There is more than sufficient evidence that your chance of needing life-long, expensive care are a lot higher if you choose to forgo the helmet. That cost is normally one that is a burden to the taxpayers through title XIX.

 

[rawls]

Is there a point where safety and enjoyment of the experience reach a point of diminished return of enjoyment because of the emphasis on safety

To me safety is in the preparation...plan your dive and dive your plan...review in your mind inherent risks for the particular dive and how you are going to deal with them. In your dive plan determine what you need to make the dive. Don't over do it, in effect, take things you don't need. Plan your depth and dive time and take the proper gases, etc...If you are doing deco then calculate run times...deco gas...back gas...These are just some of the things that you include in your plan. Then you follow the plan. To me, that's safety.

I simply believe your question is loaded. Why would you need to even consider that question. As long as you prepare a good plan and carry out the plan you won't reach a point of diminished returns. You can be safe and enjoy the dive. If there is a particular kind of dive you feel will take away your enjoyment then don't do the dive.

I believe in being as safe as your particular dive requires you to be.

As far as not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle, I have seen my share of motorcycle victims come into the hospital who didn't wear a helmet...It leads credence to the term "numb skull"