Safety, how much

[captain]

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.

I have been riding motorcycles for over 30 years. If not required by law I do not generally wear a helmet. The enjoyment of riding is the experience of the environment, the wind in my face and what little hair I have left. If I have to enclose myself in a helmet, leather jacket and other protective equipment on a 95 degree day I would just as soon ride in a car. I lose the enjoyment by trying to be safe. My state has gone back and forth with the helmet law over the last 30 years and I have found that I have ridden less in the periods the law was in effect. I plan my bike trips taking into consideration what states do are do not have helmet laws.

In a car I always wear a seat belt, I feel naked without one but it doesn't distract from the enjoyment of the drive.

I approach diving the same way. If I don't need a BC to make the dive easier or more enjoyable I don't wear one. I dive solo, I do not think it makes the dive more dangerous but it changes my approach to how I conduct the dive. I do not carry redundancy to the extreme. Usually the only redundancy I carry is cutting tools of various types. I consider the snorkel a piece of safety gear on open ocean dives and will carry one if I feel the need to. I weigh the risk and adjust accordingly, that also means that I may choose to not make the dive at all.

I don't have a death wish but in the process of enjoying life, not just existing life, risks are a part of it. The only regrets are the things not done. I would rather have done something and have it turn out badly than to have not done it because there was the possibility it could turn out badly.

Maybe my additude comes from the fact that I lived at a time when there were no seat belts not just no seat belt laws, helmets were for race car drivers and there was no diving instruction other than the book that came with the tank and regulator. For me they are the good old days.

 

[Blackwood]

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 only in instances where that emphasis on safety actually affects the experience (the wind not blowing in your face being a good example).

And I suppose that is a per-person, subjective thing.

In terms of diving, I've heard people say that they don't like dive planning because it ruins the fun. For me, it's not only fun in-and-of-itself, but it also makes a dive more enjoyable because I feel more secure.

 

[Rainer]

People dive for different reasons. If you dive because you want a certain thrill (e.g. 250' on air), then you aren't going to weight safety as too important. If you dive because you want to see pretty fish and at the end of the day almost guarantee that you'll come home to tell your kids about it, well, safety probably rates higher. Clearly safety reaches a point of diminishing returns (otherwise no one would get in the water). That said, if extra "safety" (whatever form it takes) adds to your enjoyment, then you can be pretty safe and still have a good time. Everyone needs to define the function for themselves.

 

[pir8]

Since you are mostly Solo Diving, you have no responsibility to a buddy, so you should make your dive how you want. Personaly i prefer to have some kind of Buoyancy Control Device. To me it makes my dive that much easier. Of course that is how I learned in the first place.

 

[Rockhound76]

Funny...I solo dive because I feel the risks are minimal if properly planned.
I wear seatbelts out of habit and like you, would feel naked without them.

But, I NEVER ride a motorcycle or even my bicycle without a helmet.

In diving, I can control (to a degree) my safety with proper training and equipment. On a shallow warm water dive, I'll bring a minimum of gear. While I always wear a BC these days, there was a time when I did not and I still do not consider them essential for all dives.

On a motorcycle or bicycle (road)? You can plan all day long, but in the end your great risk comes from something out of your control: Other people.

I ride my bicycle from 3000-5000 miles a year and I've ridden (relay) across the country 3 times. In my garage hangs two helmets split from impacts with the ground. Both times, I was hit by cars. Both times, I was riding legally and properly.

I make no judgement on your diving decisions as I agree that the Law of Diminishing Returns applies in safety preparation. However, I disagree that "wind in your hair" is worth the incremental risk of going without a helmet, as there is nothing incremental about it.

Two months ago, I had my kids lie down in the backseat on a drive home so they didn't have to see the guy on the Harley that passed a few minute before as he lie in the road, sans helmet. Maybe it would killed him anyway, but at least his family could have had an open casket ceremony.

I'm sorry if I drifted off the topic, but it's a subject that is fresh in my mind these days....

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

The fallacy here, IMHO, is a common one, namely, the only factors in the equation are MY risks versus MY enjoyment. However, other factors include: impact of your death or injury on friends, families, coworkers; the impact of your death/injury on society as a whole; the impact of your behavior on others, such as rescue workers, health care personnel. etc.

Consider the Steeler quarterback Ben Roethlisberger --- he rode in the off season without a helmet, crashed, suffered severe cranial injuries and had a disappointing season thereafter. In this case, his behavior was not just an issue of how much pleasure he personally experienced, but also how his recklessness crippled a billion dollar sports team that was paying him millions for his services.

I don't know your situation, but anybody with young children who won't wear a helmet because it hinders their enjoyment is risking not only their own future, but the future welfare of their families. I am not saying we all must live in a cocoon, I'm just saying that a person with professional and family responsibilities has more to factor into the equation than their own satisfaction.

Consider the climbers this past winter whose behavior wound up jeopardizing rescue workers who were forced to go after them.

Many people who chose to forgo "safety" in search of pleasure and thrills end up on Social Security disability when they get injured because few have any disability policies, or their high risk behaviors make them ineligible for them. And since almost all such disability recipients wind up extracting more from the system than they pay in, the taxpayer ends up subsidizing their choice of lifestyles. Again, I am not criticizing those who must avail themselves of disability, that's what it is there for. I merely point out that what I do personally can impact society as a whole.

 

[captain]

The fallacy here, IMHO, is a common one, namely, the only factors in the equation are MY risks versus MY enjoyment. However, other factors include: impact of your death or injury on friends, families, coworkers; the impact of your death/injury on society as a whole; the impact of your behavior on others, such as rescue workers, health care personnel. etc.

Consider the Steeler quarterback Ben Roethlisberger --- he rode in the off season without a helmet, crashed, suffered severe cranial injuries and had a disappointing season thereafter. In this case, his behavior was not just an issue of how much pleasure he personally experienced, but also how his recklessness crippled a billion dollar sports team that was paying him millions for his services.

I don't know your situation, but anybody with young children who won't wear a helmet because it hinders their enjoyment is risking not only their own future, but the future welfare of their families. I am not saying we all must live in a cocoon, I'm just saying that a person with professional and family responsibilities has more to factor into the equation than their own satisfaction.

Consider the climbers this past winter whose behavior wound up jeopardizing rescue workers who were forced to go after them.

Many people who chose to forgo "safety" in search of pleasure and thrills end up on Social Security disability when they get injured because few have any disability policies, or their high risk behaviors make them ineligible for them. And since almost all such disability recipients wind up extracting more from the system than they pay in, the taxpayer ends up subsidizing their choice of lifestyles. Again, I am not criticizing those who must avail themselves of disability, that's what it is there for. I merely point out that what I do personally can impact society as a whole.

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.

 

[Teamcasa]

Personal safety vs. risk vs. fun factor. It’s an issue that there is no right or wrong answer.
We dive, it’s fun but it has risks. I weight all the factors then decide. For me, riding off-road motorcycles gives me a thrill and pumps up the endorphin levels. Diving provides me with the opposite sensation, relaxation and serenity. I will not do things that up the risk factor significantly just for the fun of it. I don’t believe my family would appreciate my killing myself doing something stupid.

Dave

 

[TheWetRookie]

There are soooooo many laws out there it is not funny, you will eventually need a certification just to go to the washroom.

For diving, if you are properly prepared for the dive and experienced enough to do it, then go enjoy yourself. Don't worry about what the others think. Evaluate what others have to say and if you change something because of it so be it and if you don't, so be it.

I have a dive buddy that thinks I am crazy to solo. One dive though not to long ago I asked him to lead as I ussually did, he refused to. Why? he did not know his way around the site though he had dove it about 50 times. I asked him to draw a map of it and mark which way was north, he could not. 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 )

Go prepared accordingly for the dive you are doing, dive safely, and enjoy yourself.

 

[The Kraken]

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.

the K