Individual Rights, and other Myths

[DevonDiver]

Exactly... who gets to decide the rules? Some dive agency that was established to make money by requiring classes for everything?

The cynical view of agency provision of courses doesn't fly IMHO. Agencies provide courses to appeal to a broad spectrum of divers. Those people aren't forced to take courses... they choose to do stuff that interests or benefits them. Agencies, in reality (rather than a cynical fantasy) do nothing more than advise the divers that they train to 'dive within the limits of their training and experience'.

You then won't be able to dive off a boat unless you have the Boat Diver speciality, dive in a dry suit without certification, do a drift dive without a special class, dive a wreck with a Wreck Diver course, etc.

Dive within the limits of your training and experience.

Drift Diver = invaluable for high current diving. Many effective techniques in that course, offering substantial knowledge increase, risk awareness and risk prevention for the diver.

Wreck Diver = As above. An interesting insight into the historic aspects of wreck diving, information about potential regulatory issues and basic risk awareness for a very specific diving environment. Not essential, but if chosen, provides increased safety, awareness and enjoyment. I won't mention the penetration aspects here... but those should speak for themselves.

Drysuit = a major cause of / contributor to DCI incidents in temperate climate countries. New equipment, that requires additional knowledge and procedures compared to a wetsuit. I wouldn't get into the water with a diver using a drysuit that had no training, knowledge or experience in its use (other than to teach them it).

Boat Diver = interest only. No debate whatsoever that this course would ever be a prerequisite for diving from a boat. Not outside any divers' "training and experience". Adds superficial information, for those divers who may choose to take the course to expand their knowledge of boats and boating from a divers' perspective.

There are lots of dangerous hobbies with no regulation what so ever.

No regulation in sports? Really?

Diving is regulated too much now, all in the name of making money.

You need to learn what 'regulation' means.

The only 'regulation' applied by scuba agencies currently is the imposition of training standards on instructors.

Agencies provide 'prudent recommendations' to students. In doing so, they define the extent and nature of the training provided, whilst also protecting themselves against liability issues, should those divers behave recklessly after training. Defining the extent and nature of the training provided is a common practice within any educational system. "This is what I will teach you...and this is what you should be able to perform afterwards".

Most of the current dive rules are based upon keeping the lowest common denominator diver from killing themselves, which is a good thing. But, at some point, the 'deciders' should realize that their rules have limits.

Which is why they are recommendations, not rules.

You can't take rules designed for the worst possible diver and try to apply them to everyone. It's a contradiction, "You aren't capable of making those decisions for yourself so I will make them for you."

And at what point does an Open Water course provide the novice diver with the knowledge to make a decision about their capacity to conduct a deep air bounce dive to 180ft?

Again, they aren't rules - they are recommendations. The course provider (agency) understands the limitations of the training given in any particular course. They base their recommendations upon the training content given - not upon the personal attributes of any individual diver.

If you do an Open Water course... you learn X, Y and Z skills...and A, B and C knowledge. Those specific skills and knowledge equip you to safely carry out dives within a prudent set of parameters. Dives outside those parameters may require extra skills and knowledge. Scuba agencies do nothing more than recommend that divers expand their training in line with the expansion in their chosen dive parameters. Quite simply, training should match activity.

"Oh, and don't allow another diver to make your decisions for you, that's called a trust me dive and it's a bad thing." Which is it?

You're missing the point.... by a long mile.

Agencies stress that divers should "dive conservatively" and "dive within the limits of their training and experience". They don't stress that you must do X, Y or Z course before completing X, Y or Z dives.

A "trust me" dive is a dive that puts the diver into a very un-conservative position... where they exceed their training and experience - on the basis that they will be supported/guided/protected by another diver. It is wrong to dive in situations beyond the limits in which you could guarantee your own safety without that support.

So... advice given not to complete 'trust me dives'... is actually very firmly supportive of agency recommendations.

Do you make decisions for yourself as a diver or do you abdicate them to someone else? Who gets to make the decision when you transition from a trustme diver to an experienced diver? Is there going to be a class for that?! You Betcha!

All of those questions are answered in ample detail on an Open Water course. I don't understand how you...a Divemaster...would be so confused by them.

 

[captain]

I have been riding motorcycles for over 35 years. In those 35 years my state, Louisiana, has passed and repealed the helmet law twice. It is currently in effect, the aftermath of the last Democratic governor.
In those periods when the law was in effect I rode less miles per year than when it wasn't. I hate wearing a helmet in 100 degree weather and the general hassle of having to put it on and remove it for a trip that may not take as long as the time it takes putting it on and taking it off. I would take the car rather than the motorcycle when running errands. As it is now I am seriously considering selling the bike unless I see the possibility the law may be repealed in the near future.

Depending on what regulation was placed on diving the same effect may reduce or completely eliminate my interest in diving.

 

[TMHeimer]

I have been riding motorcycles for over 35 years. In those 35 years my state, Louisiana, has passed and repealed the helmet law twice. It is currently in effect, the aftermath of the last Democratic governor.
In those periods when the law was in effect I rode less miles per year than when it wasn't. I hate wearing a helmet in 100 degree weather and the general hassle of having to put it on and remove it for a trip that may not take as long as the time it takes putting it on and taking it off. I would take the car rather than the motorcycle when running errands. As it is now I am seriously considering selling the bike unless I see the possibility the law may be repealed in the near future.

Depending on what regulation was placed on diving the same effect may reduce or completely eliminate my interest in diving.

Or how about a law requiring helmets riding a moped that goes 20 mph tops and you're on a gravel road in Northern Manitoba with the nearest car maybe 50 miles away? And it's hot.

 

[Thalassamania]

Hmmmm ... sounds Canadian.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Or how about a law requiring helmets riding a moped that goes 20 mph tops and you're on a gravel road in Northern Manitoba with the nearest car maybe 50 miles away? And it's hot.

Hmmmm ... sounds Canadian.

You obviously haven't been riding a bicycle in the USA much ... I actually got a ticket once for not wearing a bicycle helmet while riding on a bike path in a county park ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[TMHeimer]

You obviously haven't been riding a bicycle in the USA much ... I actually got a ticket once for not wearing a bicycle helmet while riding on a bike path in a county park ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Not since growing up in N.Y. and riding all over the &*^%$# place without a helmet....No such laws then I guess.

 

[Mike Boswell]

I have been riding motorcycles for over 35 years. In those 35 years my state, Louisiana, has passed and repealed the helmet law twice. It is currently in effect, the aftermath of the last Democratic governor.
In those periods when the law was in effect I rode less miles per year than when it wasn't. I hate wearing a helmet in 100 degree weather and the general hassle of having to put it on and remove it for a trip that may not take as long as the time it takes putting it on and taking it off. I would take the car rather than the motorcycle when running errands. As it is now I am seriously considering selling the bike unless I see the possibility the law may be repealed in the near future.

Depending on what regulation was placed on diving the same effect may reduce or completely eliminate my interest in diving.

Why did they pass the helmet law?

 

[Spazzy]

Paternalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NAM001]

bingo

Having retired from the United States Air Force after 28 years of service, I can say I spent my adult life defending the rights of Americans. I defended other citizens right to burn the American flag. Would I burn the flag? No. Is that a right? Yes. Just because I wouldn't do it, or the act is repugnant to me, does not limit another's right to do so. IMHO less government is better government. Elected officials making laws and regulations "for my own good" scare me greatly. A little government intervention is much like being a little pregnant. Let's not even get into the true motivations of politicians.

 

[DennisS]

You obviously haven't been riding a bicycle in the USA much ... I actually got a ticket once for not wearing a bicycle helmet while riding on a bike path in a county park ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

WHAT???? They ticket adult bicyclists in the state you live, who let them do that?

The helmet manufacturers must have dropped a bundle with their lobbyists