Safety, how much

[Cacia]

What I meant to convey is that that lack of fitness trumps many of the other risk factors Scubaboarders obsess over, and it doesn't seem, based on the discussions I read, that it is appropriately weighted in their risk analysis

yea....I can not get over that one myself. I have finally stopped arguing about it and have resigned myself to the fact that many people are in denial or need the defense mechanism.

I certainly have never excluded myself from any of the "big killers", my argument is at least worry about the "right" stuff. Diving solo and even light penetration of wrecks is treated as an ethical issue for the most part around here, but certain health issues/facts should not be mentioned.

The only deaths I can recall here in seven years have been health related....natural causes.

Not one that I can think of that penetrated a wreck, ran out of air, etc....yet the lectures are always about these "antics" as SteveR calls them.
And why treat taking risks with such disdain, especailly in diving? You really only hurt yourself relative to many other activities.

It just is not logical, to me. Lovers of individual rights and personal freedom had better hunker down for the long haul.

 

[captain]

I support your right you do as you please.

But as long as I (a tax payer) am going to end up paying for the hospitalizations and long-term care of people who whack themselves riding motorcycles without a helmet, then your behavior becomes my business.

I think the solution to is require motorcyclists to purchase high-value medical insurance policies and long-term disability policies before they can ride without a helmet. Then go at, ride with you hair flapping in the wind.

The same solutions should apply to all risky behaviors that have proven costly to taxpayers.Then we can all do what we want with abandon.

What rubs me the wrong way is there are so many ways that society as a whole is cheated from tax evasion, medical insurance fraud, pork barrel spending, and on and on but let a few uninsured get their head busted riding a motorcycle and you would swear 50% of our tax dollars go to them. More than likely only a dollar or two if that much of our yearly personal tax libility goes to those few. Better a loss of freedom than a few dollars I guess.

 

[Cacia]

and don't overlook all those organs, seriously...where do you think they will come from?
Not the old wise safety conscious 98 year olds.

Free society has something for everyone.

 

[DaFireMedic]

I don't know if "thrill seeker" is the correct description but I would say it comes pretty close to you even in your occupation. Maybe adrenalin junky is a better description.

While do enjoy excitement, as everyone does, and I think there is a little "thrill seeker" in all of us, I think it takes something different to really be an adrenaline junkie. I can't ever see myself bungee jump, sky dive, or any other activity in which I consider the risk to outweigh the gain. My rock climbing days were limited to sport climbing with top ropes or leading bolted climbs. While I have friends who race downhill mountain bikes, my class was cross country endurance racing.

There are many reasons why one chooses the fire service as a profession, "thrills" are far lower on the list than most think. With me, I initially just wanted to get out of setting tile, as it was destroying my knees and I was still in my early 20's. I was attracted to paramedicine and firefighting as it was a decent, stable income with insurance, the 24 hour shifts gave me additional days off for my recreational activities, and it was something different every day. And while it might seem cliche, I have a heart for others and find it extremely rewarding in helping those who need it. My department is busy enough that I don't get bored, but slow enough that I don't get run into the ground. I had an opportunity to go to L.A. City Fire Department 8 years ago (it would have been a substantial pay raise), but I declined. I just don't have a desire to run 15-20 calls per shift like some people. I still enjoy fighting fire, but honestly, after 16 years on the department I'd be just fine if I never saw another fire in my career.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

As I pointed out the choise of those professions may be motivated by the need for risk and thrills, the fact that you preceive that risk to be noble still does not automaticly mean that those chose those professions strickily for noble reasons. For all we know they may take the same risks in their personal lives as the ones they save.

The bottom line is: this is a complex issue and many valid points have been raised (e.g., riding without a helmet versus being obese...both increase risk).

Let me clarify: I didn't say taking risk for personal enjoyment is always wrong, I said that other factors entered into the equation besides simply: is the pleasure worth the risk? Factors such as: does the risk help others, does the risk also extend to friends, family, coworkers, rescue workers...etc

The overall risk of an activity to a retired person with limited professional and personal responsibilities may be "less" than the risk to a young person with extensive responsibilities. In your situation, the risk you assume for your enjoyment may be perfectly justified. For someone else, it may not be.

The insurance issues (should rates be higher for the obese, and so on) are also complex. For example, smokers actually consume LESS health care dollars per person than nonsmokers and the same may be true of the obese. Why? Because the obese and the smokers all die YOUNGER than thin, non-smokers.

Don't forget: we all will die of SOMETHING. The fit non-smoker who lives until 90, with 15 years spent in a nursing home, who then has a stroke and dies in a hospital may end up costing the health care system far more than the 45 year old smoker who simply drops dead on the golf course.

There are no easy answers.

 

[Nemrod]

shakeybrainsurgeon, that healthcare system your worried about--I paid for it-- since I have always actually had a job and pay huge sums of taxes and SS, if I cost them some of MY money--to freak'n bad.


Live dangeous and die free.

N

 

[CrabCake]

Good topic.

I always consider safety in almost everything I do. That does not mean that I walk around in a plastic bubble-I just am more aware of inherent dangers. As an electrician, I used to occationally come into contact with 15KV. It pays to think.
I also ride a motorcycle-and have on occations rode without a helmet. My head is on a swivel-always looking for an out in case ***** hits the fan. Not detracting from my ride-just more aware. I race cars-belts,helmets and roll bars are the norm. I have just as much fun in a fire suit as I would in a pair of shorts.
Safety for me is more awareness about what I'm about to do than a reason not to do it.

 

[captain]

The bottom line is: this is a complex issue and many valid points have been raised (e.g., riding without a helmet versus being obese...both increase risk).

Let me clarify: I didn't say taking risk for personal enjoyment is always wrong, I said that other factors entered into the equation besides simply: is the pleasure worth the risk? Factors such as: does the risk help others, does the risk also extend to friends, family, coworkers, rescue workers...etc

The overall risk of an activity to a retired person with limited professional and personal responsibilities may be "less" than the risk to a young person with extensive responsibilities. In your situation, the risk you assume for your enjoyment may be perfectly justified. For someone else, it may not be.

The insurance issues (should rates be higher for the obese, and so on) are also complex. For example, smokers actually consume LESS health care dollars per person than nonsmokers and the same may be true of the obese. Why? Because the obese and the smokers all die YOUNGER than thin, non-smokers.

Don't forget: we all will die of SOMETHING. The fit non-smoker who lives until 90, with 15 years spent in a nursing home, who then has a stroke and dies in a hospital may end up costing the health care system far more than the 45 year old smoker who simply drops dead on the golf course.

There are no easy answers.

I agree.

 

[ClayJar]

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.

Yes... but...

As we can easily see just by looking at the situation (or perusing this thread, if we're in a rush), there is no set tipping point where enjoyment starts to go downhill for every person. For some of us, just enough safety to make survival likely is the limit. For others, only when safety is taken to ridiculous levels does it become meddlesome.

I did some quick illustrations to show a few personality types. The vertical axis of the graphs is "enjoyment", while the horizontal axis is "safety". These are just qualitative examples, of course. Real people tend to be more complex than such simple two-dimensional text art. Anyway...

[C]|....................
|____________________
|....................
|....................
|....................
|....................
|....................
+--------------------
"Oblivious"[/C]
This first response curve is most commonly seen in some new poorly-trained OW divers. They are oblivious to the dangers involved in diving, and so, their enjoyment is basically constant across all values of safety. Being new, their enjoyment level is natually high.

[C]|....................
|...____.............
|../....\............
|./......\__.........
|/..........\__......
|..............\__...
|.................\__
+--------------------
"Normal"[/C]
A "normal" person starts out with a moderate level of enjoyment (tempered somewhat by the unease a lack of adequate perceived safety might cause). Adding a little safety quickly brings them to a plateau, where any small increases or decreases in safety make negligible difference to their enjoyment. When more safety is added, however, it eventually becomes cumbersome (too much gear, too many procedures, et cetera), and their enjoyment diminishes.

[C]|\...................
|.\..................
|..\.................
|...\................
|....\...............
|.....\..............
|......\_____________
+--------------------
"Reckless Adrenaline Junkie"[/C]
A reckless adrenaline junkie starts off with extremely high enjoyment levels, but any added safety measures quickly get in the way of the rush. A level of safety that a "normal" person might appreciate could be immensely unpalatable to them. (This response curve is not usually found in its pure form, but is often blended with other response curves in real people.)

[C]|...........___......
|........._/...\.....
|......._/......\....
|....._/.........\...
|..._/............\..
|._/...............\.
|/..................\
+--------------------
"Safety Conscious"[/C]
A "safety conscious" person finds little enjoyment without safety. At the safety level at which a "normal" person's enjoyment plateaus, this person's enjoyment level is still increasing. By the point in safety at which this person's enjoyment level peaks, even a normal person may find things burdensome.


The "safety conscious" diver might be perfectly happy carrying redundant *everything* (pony or doubles, two or three lights, two or three cutting tools, drysuit or lift bag, two masks, and so on), while the "normal" diver might think that's crazy and simply be wondering whether to go with an integrated octoflator. The "reckless adrenaline junkie", meanwhile, might be upset by a boat requiring an SPG, and the "oblivious" divers... well... someone might want to remind them to put their fins on before that giant stride, but they do seem to enjoy themselves.

 

[MikeFerrara]

That would be a fine attitude if you could opt out of the helmet law and at the same time opt out of any tax payer supported medical care when you smash your head in because you didn't have a helmet -- starting with no ride in a publically funded emergency vehicle or stay at a publically funded emergency room.

Sadly, that option isn't open to you. When you get in an accident, tax payer support kicks in immediately. Asking you to minimize the impact caused by your choices when those choices have economic impacts on an entire community is not unreasonable.

Moreover, it has nothing to do with keeping you safe. It has everything to do with not wasting community resources.

Using your logic, taking part in any activity that has risk and isn't completely necessary is irresponsible. Why dive at all? A helmet does NOT eliminate motorcycle or bicycle injuries...best just stay off the bikes...and stay out of a car unless the travel is absolutely necessary.

But who gets to decide what's too dangerous? I do some cave diving and some deep diving but I think a new PADI OW diver is unsafe at any depth. Do you get to stop me from cave diving or do I get to keep the PADI OW divers out of the water.

If I'm a great mototcycle rider who rides without a helmet, am I in more danger than a lousy rider? If safety is the big issue, what sense does it make to pit a cycle against cars and trucks with or without a helmet?

Clearly most of these issues and related legeslation are total nonsense and more about some people wanting to control other people than it is about safety or protecting resources.

Seatbelt laws in the US are probably the perfect example. Laws were passed requireing auto makers to install air bags. The auto makers didn't want to at the time and in turn lobbied for and traded seat belt laws in exchange for relief from airbag laws. That's the way it happened and it all had to do with politics and very little to do with safety or the preservation of public resources.

Further, a little research will show the dubious nature of any studies that would attempt to show that wearing seatbelts does any material good at all for the public. In fact, there are plenty of studies that show that certain types of accidents and injuries are actually increased by the use of belts. If public resources or safety were at issue, wouldn't you think that something would be done to improve driver training and testing. Just as an example note that there is no mandatory training for snow, ice or any other slipery conditions and how the ditches fill up with cars everytime the weather gets a bit foul. No, if someone wanted to improve driving safety, they would do something to improve driver skill. Yet, the brain washed public tolerates these "click it or ticket" laws. They are an abomination. No sense in discussing what good seatbelts might be when there are demonstrably so many drivers on the road who don't know the first thing about handling an automobile.


Let me keep my tax money and keep the government out of my shorts and I'll gladly agree to never ask for a single thing. As it is, I've paid in enough taxes, ssc and medicare tax over the years that I ought to get a little something at some point.