Safety, how much

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

By the same token I paid house insurance for the last 35 years but if my house burns down today it will cost the insurance company about 8 times what I have paid them. If we had to pay into insurance what the insurance might potentially have to pay back to us there would be no point in having it. A few collect a lot, the majority collect very little from insurance.

Very true, but Nemrod's attitude, to use your analogy, would be: I paid for the fire insurance, so I am entitled to set off bottle rockets in the living room or have a bonfire-hot dog roast in the basement. By engaging in behavior that greatly exceeds the risk level of the average member of an insured population, a person assumes a greater degree of protection from that policy compared to a more risk averse person. As Nemrod says, it is well within someone's rights to engage in risky behavior and still be insured, so long as that behavior is not excluded by the policy. But it isn't anything to be proud of, either, since eventually, the high risk subset of people wind up driving the rates up for everyone else. The whole reason Nemrod and the rest of us pay so much for SS is because more and more people are forced to rely on it.

I sense a certain degree of machismo in this thread about risk taking, but "risk taking" today isn't what it used to be. When Cousteau started diving, he didn't have dive boats with oxygen and defibrillators standing by, or decompression chambers nearby, or Coast Guard choppers to evacuate him to high quality hospitals. In the 1950s, if you went down on a motorcycle on the interstate, some funeral director doubling as an ambulance driver scraped your sorry carcass off the road, hosed off the pavement, and then drove you to a rural ER to die. Today, if you aren't flown to some level one trauma center within a half hour, and in the OR minutes later, you start calling malpractice attorneys.

The high level of transport and medical care, the wonders of modern orthopedic surgery, the advent of MRI scanners, and so on, provide a degree of safety, even with horrible injury, that was unimagined before. This is all very good, of course, but it has blunted the bragging rights of he-men. I suspect that the brave souls (and dumb-****** pranksters on you-tube) who take pride in their daring exploits never REALLY expect to be in wheelchairs the rest of their lives. They know modern medicine will bail them out. And we usually do.

 

[Cacia]

Very true, but Nemrod's attitude, to use your analogy, would be: I paid for the fire insurance, so I am entitled to set off bottle rockets in the living room or have a bonfire-hot dog roast in the basement.

I don't see it that way.

I see it like this: You are either taking from the system or giving to the system and people know which they are. If you pay taxes and don't utilize public schools or take entitlement programs, you can pretty much bet you are in the black with Uncle Sam, for example.

I am willing to bet Nemrod (without ever having met him) has costs the US taxpayers very little compared to the "average" person. The same spirit that makes him a solo diver would not allow him to go through life with his hand out.

There is a lot of talk about your carbon footprint, I'd like to see people be aware of their *footprint on society* in general. Safety and risk certainly factor in but in the big picture, people that don't rely on Uncle Sam to direct their behavior are more likely to be self reliant personalities. (and much less likey to sue you too)

if I listened to the government, my kids would be a mess.

 

[Luis H]

This is a great topic and there are some great points
Thanks Captain and many of the contributors.

First let me say that I personally enjoy talking some calculated risk and totally enjoy an adrenalin rush, but can’t call myself an “adrenalin junkie”. I used to do a lot of white water kayaking, alpine skiing (I still do a lot of skiing), rock climbing, a bit of ice climbing, skydiving, soaring, etc. etc… and I even rode a motorcycle for a wile (but always wore a helmet). I don’t consider Scuba diving a high risk sport for the most part (there are some exceptions like some overhead environments).


I will have to agree with shakeybrainsurgeon in the following statement:
“My point was that we do not take personal risk in a vacuum.”

Let me give a non-monetary example based on lightly on some of my EMS background:

I live in semi-rural Maine with relatively limited EMS services. If a motorcycle is involved in an accident with car, statistically his injuries will be worst if he is not wearing a helmet. And a head injury will take precedence over a limb under triage. Therefore, based on the principles of triage the motorcycle rider will probably receive first attention and delay the care to anyone else injured on the scene. Who was at fault is totally irrelevant.

It is a very complex subject. Here in Maine you commonly see stickers that read: “Let those who ride decide”. I can’t totally argue with it, but the EMS people that clean up the scene should have something to say. Maybe in the cost of insurance… I don’t know.


IMHO it is not the same to take risk out in the wilderness (unless you demand rescue with your new cell phone for making stupid decisions) as on the public highways.
IMHO driving on public highways is a privilege not a right. In the highway your freedoms can infringe on the freedoms of others.

 

[Hank49]

I sense a certain degree of machismo in this thread about risk taking, but "risk taking" today isn't what it used to be. When Cousteau started diving, he didn't have dive boats with oxygen and defibrillators standing by, or decompression chambers nearby, or Coast Guard choppers to evacuate him to high quality hospitals. In the 1950s, if you went down on a motorcycle on the interstate, some funeral director doubling as an ambulance driver scraped your sorry carcass off the road, hosed off the pavement, and then drove you to a rural ER to die. Today, if you aren't flown to some level one trauma center within a half hour, and in the OR minutes later, you start calling malpractice attorneys.

You're looking at this from a developed country point of view. Come to Stann Creek. It's still exactly what you just described.

 

[captain]

My definition of "thrill seeker" and "risk taker" are those who's only reason to do whatever is, is because of the danger not inspite of the danger.
I don't know if I would call treatment a degree of safety but rather a modification of outcome. Sure some who would have died in earlier days may live today but it doesn't make the original act safer.
I know I won't do something thinking, what the heck the doctors will fix me up.

 

[Luis H]

Very true, but Nemrod's attitude, to use your analogy, would be: I paid for the fire insurance, so I am entitled to set off bottle rockets in the living room or have a bonfire-hot dog roast in the basement. By engaging in behavior that greatly exceeds the risk level of the average member of an insured population, a person assumes a greater degree of protection from that policy compared to a more risk averse person. As Nemrod says, it is well within someone's rights to engage in risky behavior and still be insured, so long as that behavior is not excluded by the policy. But it isn't anything to be proud of, either, since eventually, the high risk subset of people wind up driving the rates up for everyone else. The whole reason Nemrod and the rest of us pay so much for SS is because more and more people are forced to rely on it.

I sense a certain degree of machismo in this thread about risk taking, but "risk taking" today isn't what it used to be. When Cousteau started diving, he didn't have dive boats with oxygen and defibrillators standing by, or decompression chambers nearby, or Coast Guard choppers to evacuate him to high quality hospitals. In the 1950s, if you went down on a motorcycle on the interstate, some funeral director doubling as an ambulance driver scraped your sorry carcass off the road, hosed off the pavement, and then drove you to a rural ER to die. Today, if you aren't flown to some level one trauma center within a half hour, and in the OR minutes later, you start calling malpractice attorneys.

The high level of transport and medical care, the wonders of modern orthopedic surgery, the advent of MRI scanners, and so on, provide a degree of safety, even with horrible injury, that was unimagined before. This is all very good, of course, but it has blunted the bragging rights of he-men. I suspect that the brave souls (and dumb-****** pranksters on you-tube) who take pride in their daring exploits never REALLY expect to be in wheelchairs the rest of their lives. They know modern medicine will bail them out. And we usually do.

I tend to agree with you, but let me remind you that not all that stuff are available everywhere. And if someone thinks that modern medicine will bail them out… well they should be a good candidate for a “Darwin Award”. IMHO modern medicine is improving in big steps, but it has a long ways to go.

I think that Captain and Nemrod are invoking more personal responsibility not crying to a lawyer for ones stupid decisions. You make your choices and pay the price.
I realize that is not the way modern America is going.

 

[Nemrod]

shakeybrainsurgeon, don't state my attitude for me. I can do that myself. If you think you can insulate yourself from all danger then by all means do so. The high costs of medical insurance is due to drug programs, crime, illegal activities and illegal alien and ambulance chasers and lawsuit happy patients who like to sue "shakey" surgeons and a nation of hamburger butts. I am sorry you don't like my "attitude"--too bad that but don't blame the high cost of medical insurance on me--it ain't me that is the problem---I have never cost the gubernment one cent and I hand them over wheelbarows full of money--again--if I ever need any of it back I will not feel guilty, I am Catholic, I have other stuff to be guilty over. Machismo--that is crap thinking on your part--your going to have to do better than that. Heck, maybe people should just kill themselves before they get old and cost ol'uncle sam any money--their money. I realize that is slowly where the mdecial industry is going--justified sucuide and murder so the victims will not cost anybody any money or time or effort.

Hand me the Aqua Lung, I am going down.

N
Live dangerous, die free

 

[Cacia]

I realize that is not the way modern America is going.

nope and just wait for our new nationalized health care!

The feds cannot manage themselves, do you really think they can manage you?

 

[captain]

I think that Captain and Nemrod are invoking more personal responsibility not crying to a lawyer for ones stupid decisions. You make your choices and pay the price.
I realize that is not the way modern America is going.

Several months ago I was drilling a piece of metal on my drill press in the garage. The drill stuck in the metal and pulled it from my hand and threw it through a window. I should have clamped the metal down. I was my fault I should have been prepared. I knew better. The window is one of two and that particular style glass in it is no longer available. I cost me 1300 bucks to replace both windows so they would match. Didn't feel right filling a claim because it shouldn't have happened.

 

[DeepSeaExplorer]

I now see why he thinks I should not solo, because he can't dive himself without someone holding his hand. (He can now draw a map of the site, I made him learn it and also had him lead )

This strikes the heart of it for me. I'm quite surprised by the number of divers here that seem to believe that they are risking thier lives by scuba diving. There also seems to be inflation of the risks with sensational mentalities such as "every dive is a deco dive requiring life support equipment." These divers must in fact be the risk-taking thrill-seekers I keep hearing about. Perhaps they only chose diving because they are thrill-seekers and now want to believe the risk is higher than it actually is. Someone once told me that a lot of new divers quit and go to sky diving when they find out that scuba isn't as risky as they expected. Makes me wonder...

I dive solo most of the time simply because I can't find other divers willing to swim long distances. I use doubles, not because I need redundancy for solo dives, but because I want more gas to extend the dive. (On occassion, when the seas are calm and the water is warm as it is now, I even take a stage bottle.)

As I continually hear other divers talking about how dangerous diving is, especially solo diving, I have recently begin to realize that we're in two different worlds. In my world, there is absolutely no fear of solo diving. In fact, I can't wait to get in the water and out on the reef by myself. I can swim as hard as I want without worrying if I'm pushing too hard, go any direction do anything. Yes, I do enjoy team diving and can effortlessly switch to that mode and be a great DIR buddy, but sometimes I just need to be on my own.

Just as my experience with martial arts, as I became more experienced, it became harder and harder to find a place to workout that suited me. I now believe that solo diving is just a natural progression. At some point, you simply outgrow the establishment (for lack of a better word I guess) with all their rules designed for entry-level divers and move on without them. I can see that from a newbee's perspective that solo dives a mile from the beach with three tanks would be risky for them, but for me I'm diving well within my skills and it's just another great day in the water. It's also a great workout to keep my cave diving skills sharp since I don't get to cave county as often as I would like.

I guess my challenge now is by-passing those posts and just let it go...