Would Government Regulation of Diving Be So Bad?

[DennisS]

"The Government that governs least, governs best"

Thomas Jefferson

 

[TwoTanks]

First, A C-card would be like a driver’s license, $50 every five years and more for additional certs.

Second, whose standards would they use? Recreational? Tech?
DIR? ETC?
That will be a loose-loose situation.

Third, where does enforcement fit in? Do they tax our fills to pay cops and inspectors? Will they require special computers, which will record our depth and activity to make sure we don't exceed our limits? and what if we do, will they impound our regs?

Will we have to attend overdivers anonymous meetings?

Fourth, who will be responsible for resolving disagreements and jurisdictional issues? Another bureaucracy?

Fifth, what about equipment, Will we need an inspection sticker every year, Another $30 to say our annual service was OK.

Sixth, will someone somewhere decide that some dives are too dangerous (like deep cave diving) or just wrong (like war wrecks)?

Once there is a bureaucracy in place anyone will be able to petition it and they will have (or grant themselves) the authority to ban any dive or dives they want.

What if local groups want to have community input into such an agency, wealthy coastal areas would be able to dictate dive activity in their areas.

Seventh, after 9/11 the FBI was looking into divers and dive shops. If they already had an agency in place, what would they have done? Suspended all licenses? Required new license forms with fingerprints (like they do for gun licenses now)?


No, the government has enough to do without regulating a sport where most injuries result from participant errors and no one but the participant (or someone aiding them) gets hurt.

If you want to make diving safer, maybe the government could require tests for common sense, IQ, over enthusiasm and a complete psychological workup, then refuse anyone who for any reason might do something dangerous, like trying to breath underwater.

 

[Rick Murchison]

There is no constitutional mandate for the government to get involved in any recreational activity that doesn't have significant *public* safety implications. Hurtling along the public highways in several tons of steel, or through the skies in several tons of metal have significant public safety consequences beyond the safety of the operator, and licensing is appropriate. Diving isn't like that.
As much as some of you would like to use the long hand of the law to keep others from being idiots in *all* situations, you just don't have that right except in cases where individual idiocy has a significant impact on public (read *your*) safety.
Freedom requires constant vigilance to protect it not only from the enemies who would enslave us from without, but especially from those well-meaning do-gooders who think I need protection from myself and would use the government to save me.
Well, no thanks.
Rick

 

[TwoTanks]

There is no constitutional mandate for the government to get involved in any recreational activity that doesn't have significant *public* safety implications.
....
Well, no thanks.
Rick

Kids bicycle helmets are required by law....
Motorcycle helmets....
Seatbelt laws...
Smoking...
Drinking...

None of these laws are for general public safety; they are to protect the individuals, not the general public, same as scuba laws would.

These laws are not necessarily bad, but they do take away individual freedoms, to protect the individual, against himself.

You make it sound like they can't do it. That doesn't mean they won't.

They could say compressed gas cylinders are as danderous as guns and use that to regulate access to them, Etc.

TT

 

[scubafool]

I don't recall anyone saying that the government couldn't. A lot of people hoping that the govenrment doesn't, though.

 

[Damselfish]

Kids bicycle helmets are required by law....
Motorcycle helmets....
Seatbelt laws...
Smoking...
Drinking...

None of these laws are for general public safety; they are to protect the individuals, not the general public, same as scuba laws would.

These laws are not necessarily bad, but they do take away individual freedoms, to protect the individual, against himself.

You make it sound like they can't do it. That doesn't mean they won't.

They could say compressed gas cylinders are as danderous as guns and use that to regulate access to them, Etc.

TT

I fully agree with the government staying out of scuba, but very little happens in a vacuum.

I've heard it argued that the laws mentioned do also protect the public in part, for example by holding down medical costs that everyone is paying for. By protecting kids whose parents wouldn't in many cases. That a driver in an accident has a better chance of controlling a vehicle if they're wearing a seatbelt, making it less likely to take someone else with them. Smoking does affect other people hence the laws related to smoking in public places, and as far as the age laws one might argue that if kids aren't allowed to buy cigarettes and get addicted early, there will be less smokers which would save the public money.

One could also say bad divers are more likely to get themselves in trouble and cause other people to be put at risk, or money to be spent finding or rescuing them.

All these points can be argued, but when there's not as clear a public safety issue (like a pilot) a lot of the activities that get regulated are the higher volume ones. What percentage of people drive vs. scuba dive? (I figure the other classes of regulated activities are the what the government can make money on or at least recover money spent, and the ones that get regulated out of knee-jerk stupidity.)

 

[Rick Murchison]

Kids bicycle helmets are required by law....
Motorcycle helmets....
Seatbelt laws...
Smoking...
Drinking...

None of these laws are for general public safety;

Au contraire...
Seatbelts are all about controlling a lethal weapon (car) - or protecting a non-driver from the driver's activity. Laws about drinking are designed to keep drunks off the public roads and generally out of public where they can start fights etc.
Laws about smoking have to do with the general public health but are much less supportable than the other two.
Helmet laws... I'd support the removal of helmet laws as an unconstitutional intrusion on private activity, but only with a caveat that any unhelmeted rider could never sue anyone else for a head injury.
As for me, I wore a helmet whenever I rode a motorcycle without the benefit of any helmet law.
Rick

 

[Geddes]

I worked in general aviation, around private and non-commercial pilots, and I can tell you, regardless if they are certified pilots or or not, some people are stupid about what ever they do, be it flying, diving, driving or lawn darts. I think, even with the best intentions, the government would not be able to change that fact. It seems to me presure from peers to do things the right way is the best way to prevent idiotic behavior, even so far as dive shops sacrificing the dollars to keep the foolish divers from diving. If you want to add extra cost, red-tape, and hassle to diving, get the government involved.

 

[H2Andy]

first, thank you to everyone who has participated and shared your views without
feeling the need to make personal attacks on anyone else.

i actually like the distinction some people are making between divers and instructors.

after all, instructors are responsible for teaching people how to survive on life-support,
which could, if taught improperly, lead to the death or injury of the students.

so... states regulate professionals (doctors, lawyers, nurses) all the time... why
not have state regulation of instructors, as some have suggested?

what would be wrong with requiring instructors to meet basic requirements
and be licensed accordingly, with on-going professional education requirements?

at the very least, wouldn't that provide a higher bar than we have right now for
instructors?

 

[Quarrior]

first, thank you to everyone who has participated and shared your views without
feeling the need to make personal attacks on anyone else.

i actually like the distinction some people are making between divers and instructors.

after all, instructors are responsible for teaching people how to survive on life-support,
which could, if taught improperly, lead to the death or injury of the students.

so... states regulate professionals (doctors, lawyers, nurses) all the time... why
not have state regulation of instructors, as some have suggested?

what would be wrong with requiring instructors to meet basic requirements
and be licensed accordingly, with on-going professional education requirements?

at the very least, wouldn't that provide a higher bar than we have right now for
instructors?

Andy, reasonable questions.

I can't help wondering though, which non-diving politician would set the standards? You don't really believe an experienced diver would be involved in making diving decisions, do you?

My second question is, how much would it cost to be trained by these instructors that are licensed and who would be willing to pay it?

Third, how much would it cost the instructors to become "certified" by whatever agency is resposible for regulating them?

Finally, would the instructors be protected by the government from legal action like the medical insurance companies are?