Individual Rights, and other Myths

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Hear, hear. Where would the regulation stop? Would we have to abide by PADI's rules of being limited to 60 feet without taking additional expensive classes? Will the dive op not only enforce a no alcohol policy, but also bar me from diving because I drank the night before? Will I have to surface with 500 psi even when I'm not diving with a boat that requires that? Will I have to wear a snorkel, as the City of Laguna Beach once required?

Looking outside of the American-centric view of the world, it's obvious that many locations do have more regulations... and they don't get out of hand or do anything to diminish people's enjoyment of the sport. Very rarely do such 'restrictions' actually limit divers' core freedoms. They certainly don't devolve into a situation where every minutiae is scrutinized and subject to regulation.

I've never been in a dive operation that didn't restrict diving for anyone who was impaired by alcohol, whether that was hang-over or current inebriation. The key word is impaired. If I encountered a dive operation that didn't look after customers this way, then I'd run away from them.

I've never been anywhere that imposes a 60' limit - but then, neither do the agencies. Check the wording on depth limitations... you'll see they are recommendations. Furthermore, PADI recommend a 60' limit for "newly qualified Open Water divers". Again, key words: newly qualified. So many people seem to have a very selective understanding of that concept...

I have been to places where other restrictions are in place. Some areas might ban gloves, reef hooks or lights (cave areas).

In the Maldives, diving below 30m/100' is banned. I've enjoyed several great vacations there and this regulation didn't impact on the enjoyment I had in my dives.

On the "honor system" most people tend to remain honorable.

I'd venture to disagree. Plenty of evidence here on SB to support a view that people will readily ignore the prudent recommendations given to them. My experiences as a dive-pro, in real life, dealing with customers tend to echo that also.

The few reckless deaths that do occur do not impact the sport adversely, instead their stupidity is held up as a good example of what not to do. As for the families impacted, if these reckless people were prevented somehow from doing stupid things on scuba, they'd soon kill themselves some other way.

The trouble is that most of the risks inherent in scuba diving are 'invisible'. By that, I mean that they aren't directly apparent to the diver - going to 160' feels the same as going to 60'. Divers don't 'feel' their nitrogen saturation. They rarely 'feel' the true state of their narcosis. It's easy to maintain a blissful ignorance of the risk you put yourself under, until the day that it nearly kills you..or does kill you.

Stand at the edge of a cliff... and your brain warns you of the danger.
Drive up the freeway at 120kmph... and your brain warns you of the danger.
Saturate your body with nitrogen... and your brain... does nothing.

That is not recklessness. It's the nature of the beast with scuba diving. Divers, especially novices, won't have an instinctive self-protection awareness of the risks. They are easily tempted into dangerous situations and won't get the 'alarm bells' that evolution has provided us with for other risky scenarios.

As a consequence, those who do understand the risks have more responsibility to safe-guard and protect those people. Likewise, anyone who wants to be a diver should be prudent enough to understand that risks exist which they won't be aware of, or protected from, by their evolved 'danger perception'.
 
I belong to what is arguably the safest and best trained group of divers on earth. We operate in voluntary accord with what is arguably the most stringent set of rules and regulations (for diving at least). It is our consensual standard that makes our diving the way it is. It is basically a social contract system, if you don't want to abide by the rules and regulations you don't dive as part of the community, it means that you do not want to be part of it and it means that we don't want you to be.
 
Some pretty savvy people here on SB have recently defended the principle of "Individual Rights", making the point that divers have the right to dive any way they like, as long as they don't harm others.

This is a version of the good old American ideal of the rugged individualist exercising his individual liberty, and has strong emotional appeal because it's linked to the successes of American icons like Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Steve Jobs.

But does it really apply to scuba divers? Do we have the "individual right" to dive in a reckless manner because it's nobody else's business? If there is an accident or fatality, is it true that it doesn't harm others?

Frankly, I find this argument to be childish, arrogant, and wrong. Childish because it fails to recognize the inevitable consequences of an accident on other people. Arrogant because the average scuba diver is no Thomas Edison. Wrong because the implicit assumption - of "no harm to others" - is virtually impossible.

So let's get real here: If a scuba diver is hurt doing something reckless or stupid, it affects their friends, families, fellow divers, rescue folks, medical folks, insurance folks, dive businesses, and the reputation of the dive community. Do we have the "right" to do that?

I've never argued that it will do no harm to others.

It certainly harms family members of the deceased if their loved one goes off and dies doing something stupid.

On the other hand, if you revoke the individual right to be able to do that, then you will allow for government to start legislating based on the hurt feelings of others which is a dangerous slippery slope.
 
I normally can resist forum bait, but... The only thing I have to say about this is "rugged individualists" make my insurance to high, in part by usually not having any.

If they have no insurance it should not impact your insurance rates.
Your taxes....well, that is another story.
 
I belong to what is arguably the safest and best trained group of divers on earth. We operate in voluntary accord with what is arguably the most stringent set of rules and regulations (for diving at least). It is our consensual standard that makes our diving the way it is. It is basically a social contract system, if you don't want to abide by the rules and regulations you don't dive as part of the community, it means that you do not want to be part of it and it means that we don't want you to be.

when did you cross over to GUE Thal?




Now I will go run and hide...ROFLMAO
 
I belong to what is arguably the safest and best trained group of divers on earth. We operate in voluntary accord with what is arguably the most stringent set of rules and regulations (for diving at least). It is our consensual standard that makes our diving the way it is. It is basically a social contract system, if you don't want to abide by the rules and regulations you don't dive as part of the community, it means that you do not want to be part of it and it means that we don't want you to be.

The very definition of free choice. Each diver has a choice whether or not this team diving culture is for them, but if they chose not to join the group, they are under no obligations whatsoever to that group, or it to them.
 
The irony of this thread is that those divers who assert their freedom to dive in any manner, place, depth, and whatever and however they want, those "freedom advocates" are the ones who bring about the imposition of regulation and rules. I am a small government, libertarian conservative who wishes we had fewer rules in every aspect of our lives. However, when a person shows little regard for the safety of him/herself or others, regardless of the activity, then we have a social climate where government decides they must "step in" and regulate. Applying this unfortunate state of affairs to diving, I can tell you that in at least one of my favorite dive locations shore diving is not allowed because incompetent divers have been lost. Around the world, every time some under equipped and under skilled diver decides to penetrate a wreck and doesn't come out, there is at least talk of restrictions and often restrictions are put in place. We each have the freedom to become the best, most competent divers we can be. But when you screw around, act stupidly, or irresponsibly, your are hurting every other diver. So please- be adventurous, go where no diver has gone before, when you are trained, equipped, and skilled enough to do so safely. Don't screw things up for the rest of us, please.
DivemasterDennis
 
A lot of food for thought in this thread. As a third party viewing this i would not be sure which way to go as far as more or less regulation. As someone of a conservitive mind i say less regulation. I agree regulation has its place, such as in air quality, testing proceedures, various other regulations asociated with or in regards to business or operation. I think scuba is no different than a gas station operation. What i object to is the rgulations following the product. Ie Gas from a regulated gas station once put in your car carries with it the regulations of the gas station. As related to scuba. The purpose of regulating air quality is accepted, but when that air is delivered to the customer the regs should end as it is no longer in a business environment. Our Government uses the commerce clause/interpretation to envolk is authority on every aspect of our lives. I dont think i want to open the door to allow "cradle to grave" jurisdiction of the dive industry. Many of you remember when the govt. ceased regulating many aspects of the gas we breath. they legislated by saying that thngs are to be done per the recommendations of the CGA ect. What hapened now ..we have to be O2 clean for 23.5% nitrox. So the govt. passed the buck on policy to the cga and dot, which resulted is also passing the accountability of the recommendations from the govt to the cga ans dot ect. Being a letigous society these organizations. now went overboard with perecaution to minimize exposure. Our so called regulations are not as a result of safety or common sence but rather exposure to legal liability. give these folks the power to regulate "legislate by recommendtion" and what you get is ppo2 limits of say .9 because of a single incident that results in a suit of the cga ect. There are , in my opinion, 2 ways to look at regulation that is ..... A. the regulation of a process and B. the process of regulation. A. we all have grown to accept, sometimes with reluctance but deep down we know it is a necessary evil for the good of the end user. B on the other hand is the process of regulation to produce a desired result for the creators. It requires no knowledge of what is being regulated because as in scuba the regs are not for the benefit of scuba divers but are for the benifit of the regulators.

Here is an example. feds say air presurazation will be done in compliance with dot cga ect. insurance says operators will comply with fed mandate. cga says we are on the hook for this if any thing happens to anyone. we must rewrite oour recommendations, lets see what problems do we have. let us see, last week a bubba lost a limb from filling a an old rusted welding tank used for his potatoe gun when it rutpured at 500 psi while loading in his truck.. cga responds saying a. inspect gas cylendars at intervals equaling no more than 10 fills. b. utilize a 8:1 safety factor for all gas cylendars c. no cylendars maty be transported with any presure exceeding 1/20 burst presure. the ins co's say 1. what a good deal the recommendations all but eliminate a payout. 2. if there is we can go after the regulating agencies. and 3. we tie the gas handling regs to the business liability policy as apposed to using a gass filling rider on the policy.. everybody wins. and they are right because the diver was never a consideration to begin with. What the diver ends up with is paying for the inspection prior to every 10th fill in a tank that must now have a burst presure of 60kpsi in order to have 3k at the dive spot. regulators cant conceive how absurd the final result is. not to mention the weight of a cylendar that can have a burst presure of 60k.

Those looking for solice come to scubaboard and foolishly starts a thread on the sanity of the 1/20th LAW and how he ignores it. His first received responce is you will die if you exceed 1/20th. The bad part of it is you cant blame the doomsday responder because he actually believes there is a legit basis to the regulation. Those of a higher intelect understand the process and ...by the example set by the regulation ..they loose all faith in the legitimacy of any and all regulations. That my friends is when someone , who believes that all regs are overkill, gets hurt or worse. This may sound a bit crazy but how many obver fill tanks. i am guilty... after all a lp steel overseas are filed to 4k so certainly i can fill to 3500 in the good all usa. We all do so called "stupid things" and when the failure comes it is not the ins co's or the dot or the cga that pays the ultimate price. IT is only the one that accepted the behavior thst pays. Granted in the case of a ruptured tank there is a high percentage the others are impacted also. Regualtions are inplace for filling tanks. The idea of dying from a bad air fill and the life ins not paying because you did not have a spg attached in the accepted manor or your primary hose wasnot the right color is goging too far. Our Governent is not only the embodyment of regulation , it is also the embodyment of failure and innadaquacy.

I think i would rather take my chances on the experience of divers than ask for guidance from any regulator.
 
Regulation is only desireable when people insist on their right to behave in an irresponsible manner ... generally one that puts others at risk or impacts others in negative ways (either monetarily or through inconvenience or effort). Such behavior generally goes hand-in-hand with those who believe they have the "right" to behave in whatever way they please.

Where I dive, there are very few "rules" that are mandated by government at any level ... and even fewer that are enforced. One of the very few is at a dive park with is owned by the City in which it resides. There are two enforced rules ... both of which can be directly attributed to a single incident. The rules are ... no solo diving, and ... no dive propulsion vehicles.

Both of those rules existed long before the incident, but were not enforced because they were artifacts of an earlier era when there were somewhat valid reasons for their existence. The incident that spawned enforcement involved a buddy team who went out on scooters, got separated, and one of the two members proceeded to do a nice, hour-long dive while the other surfaced, didn't find his buddy, and eventually notified authorities of a missing diver. The response involved police, fire, rescue divers, and an interrupted ferry schedule. When the diver finally came in, rather than admit he screwed up he started arguing with the police ... who decided to give him a ticket for violating city ordinances. It cost him several hundred dollars and a year's suspension from the park. It cost the rest of us too ... not just because of the expense of having all those city resources out there for an hour searching for someone who was out expressing his "freedom", but because the city decided it was high time to enforce the ordinances. The park is probably the ideal place for both solo diving (because it's shallow) and DPV's (because it's 30 acres and some of the best stuff is too far away from the entry to be worth getting to kicking) ... but that one person's bad behavior cost the entire dive community a degree of freedom that they had previously enjoyed.

As I said earlier, with freedom comes responsibility ... and if you don't exercise responsibility, the government will exercise it for you. That's just part of living in a society.

Bottom line for us as divers ... diving is a self-regulated activity. The only way we're gonna keep it that way is to dive responsibly ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom