Individual Rights, and other Myths

[MXGratefulDiver]

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.

... where did this happen?

AFAIK, the only regulation that exists at the federal level is the DOT mandate that you get scuba tanks hydro'd every five years. Are you prepared to explain to us why you think that's a bad law?

I think i would rather take my chances on the experience of divers than ask for guidance from any regulator.

Some of the experienced divers on ScubaBoard worry me with the advice they give out on this board ... because while it may work out OK for them, it's an invitation to disaster when applied by lesser experienced divers under different diving conditions ... and that point rarely seems to get made.

Advice on an internet forum is generally worth exactly what you paid for it ... and it's up to each of us to apply common sense filters when considering it ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[NAM001]

If i had to pick a side i would back the city. Its thier pondand they have the right to make the rules. The 2 divers were i n the wrong and by violating the rules put the enjoyment of others at risk. I would not want regulators to dictate the owner of the pond any more than the diver.
As always you have a great post.

Regulation is only desireable when people insist on their right to behave in an irresponsible manner ......
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.
Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Mossman]

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.

That really depends on the regulations and how strictly they're enforced. On my first trip to Grand Cayman when they still limited maximum depth and use of gloves, I dove with a scofflaw who took us below 100' and didn't have a problem with my gloves. On my first trip to Bonaire, where gloves were strictly forbidden, as I was returning to the dock to exit the water on one dive I put my hand up to block my face from hitting a dock piling when the surge pushed me into it and the entire side of my hand lit up from the encrusting fire coral. Even in Cozumel, where gloves are likewise forbidden, I got an itchy rash from inadvertently brushing some hydroids when going through a swim through. Sure, that was mainly just an itchy hand a few bumps, but it would have been easily avoided had I not be forbidden to wear my gloves and protect my hands.

Who's to say that an arbitrary depth limit doesn't affect one's enjoyment of the dive? What if the depth were limited to 60' and, as I've heard, all the unbleached corals in the Maldives start much deeper? Just because you haven't found any regulations yet that you couldn't live with doesn't mean such regulations might not be imposed in the future. Governments are not usually in the best place to decide what is best for scuba divers and their underwater environment.

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.

That's because the "prudent" agency recommendations are often silly and impractical. When I've been diving with experienced divers without strict supervision, my experience is that no one really pushes the envelope. If the "prudent" recommendations were made more sensible, you'd find even more compliance.

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.

Sure, but if that were really true, you'd see a lot more dive injuries and fatalities. The fact is, most new divers are scared by PADI et al. to even dip below 60' let alone 100'. Most of the real risks in inherent in scuba diving are very visible: running out of air, having a heart attack from being out of shape, boat ladder accidents, hazardous marine life. With computers that have graphic indicators of nitrogen loading (red zone, yellow zone, green zone), I'd say that even the DCS risk has been rendered very visible. That leaves narcosis, but how many recreational divers truly die or are injured because of narcosis each year?

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.

Maybe to some people. When I'm at the edge of a deep wall, my brain already registers I'm at the edge of a cliff. When I'm 100' below the surface, surviving solely because of a regulator attached to a a small tank of pressurized air, my brain is very well aware it's in a dangerous place.

Perhaps it is the fault of the agencies, by proclaiming 60' "safe" for newly "qualified" open water divers, they minimize all the risks of breathing underwater and convince smaller brains that there's nothing at all to worry about. Still, you'd think all that training on buddy systems, air sharing, OOA ascents, the need to monitor one's gauges and do pre-dive planning, you really believe that none of that registers to most people that the recreational pursuit of diving could potentially be hazardous?

 

[NAM001]

that was not ment to be an actual example. only a hypothetical example of how regulators go to extreems on bad information and nonrelated events..

no i have no problem with hydros i thinki satated that those types of regulations are understood and being needed as opposed to what they would do if given the free reign of reinventing the already round wheel.

... where did this happen?

AFAIK, the only regulation that exists at the federal level is the DOT mandate that you get scuba tanks hydro'd every five years. Are you prepared to explain to us why you think that's a bad law?



Some of the experienced divers on ScubaBoard worry me with the advice they give out on this board ... because while it may work out OK for them, it's an invitation to disaster when applied by lesser experienced divers under different diving conditions ... and that point rarely seems to get made.

Advice on an internet forum is generally worth exactly what you paid for it ... and it's up to each of us to apply common sense filters when considering it ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[DCBC]

No, I'm not for more legislation, I'm for more personal liberty. I want scuba divers to be free of any and all regulations, and I want scuba businesses to be healthy and unregulated. And I think the way to achieve that is to focus on our responsibilities, rather than our rights.

Mike you talk about "personal liberty," but talk about collective action. We as individuals make personal decisions. When Society wishes to channel our actions, it inacts regulations. You can't have it both ways; you either promote regulation or accept that each of us has the right to make personal decisions. There's little to gain by complaining that we don't all make the same choices you do, calling people wrong because they don't agree with you is what's arrogant and childish.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Mike you talk about "personal liberty," but talk about collective action. We as individuals make personal decisions. When Society wishes to channel our actions, it inacts regulations. You can't have it both ways; you either promote regulation or accept that each of us has the right to make personal decisions. There's little to gain by complaining that we don't all make the same choices you do, calling people wrong because they don't agree with you is what's arrogant and childish.

Within limits ... your rights end at the point where they start having a negative impact on mine. Personal freedoms don't exist in a vacuum ... not unless you live on a planet with no other people on it. They can ONLY exist within the framework of respect for how they impact other people ... and that implies some responsibility on your part for the side-effects of your behavior.

Regulation is a lowest-common-denominator solution to poor behavior on the part of individuals. It is, to my concern, ALWAYS better if we regulate ourselves. In scuba diving, examples of such self-regulation would be the certification process, the "rules" for the proper use of nitrox, and numerous other self-imposed rules that are not government-imposed, but define the structure of an industry-wide standard of behavior.

When you exercise your freedom to behave outside of those standards, you may decide that doing so only impacts you and therefore it's nobody else's business. But that is rarely the case. When your actions impact others, you have a responsibility to consider those impacts and mitigate your decisions accordingly. When people refuse to do that, there will ALWAYS be some who will ask that a higher authority become involved to restrict your freedom to have a negative impact on other people.

We don't all have to make the same choices ... but we all have to make responsible choices ... because we don't live in a vacuum ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Steve50]

Best to not do anything that might upset someone else - stay in bed and have the government bring your food..

 

[DCBC]

When you exercise your freedom to behave outside of those standards...

Who's standards Bob?

We don't all have to make the same choices ... but we all have to make responsible choices ...

That's my point, who's to say what is reasonable and what is not? Who is to say what depth I can dive to on-air safely? Isn't this a personal choice? If not, who's choice should it be? Who is to set the "standards?" Forgive me, but I find it really difficult hearing lectures on the dangers of deep-air, when the same people often giving these lectures dive in wrecks and caves. Risk is risk, one particular brand of risk is not necessarily preferable to another.

 

[Mike Boswell]

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.

Here you seem to be asserting the "individual right" to dive however you wish. Correct me if I'm wrong here - I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Wikipedia has an interesting discussion about rights: Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most dive locations I'm familiar with are regulated by government, which can and does regulate your access to, and conduct in, those areas. As far as I can tell, the public has privileges, but no "rights", in those areas.

 

[DevonDiver]

That really depends on the regulations and how strictly they're enforced. On my first trip to Grand Cayman when they still limited maximum depth and use of gloves, I dove with a scofflaw who took us below 100' and didn't have a problem with my gloves.

I agree. It goes to show that the imposition of regulations isn't something that is 'bound to explode' into the micro-management of an activity.

American view of freedom seems (to me) to be very much 'all-or-nothing', black-or-white'. If freedom is eroded slightly, then it's bound to progress into a complete loss of freedom.... therefore, freedom must be absolute. Thankfully, outside of that American experience, a much more relaxed view of freedom endures (and has done for many thousands of years).

On my first trip to Bonaire, where gloves were strictly forbidden, as I was returning to the dock to exit the water on one dive I put my hand up to block my face from hitting a dock piling when the surge pushed me into it and the entire side of my hand lit up from the encrusting fire coral....

I do agree with that also... I've found that 'glove bans' are a very simple-minded method of preventing damage to coral.

However, to preserve coral from diver abuse, you're left with several other options that offer substantially 'less freedom' - ban divers from coral area altogether or selectively ban divers from areas based upon their certification and/or experience.

It'd be nice to hope that dive operators...and individual dive pros... could enforce better education and control over indisciplined divers, but scuba is a customer-service industry... and there'd be more than a few disgruntled customers who'd react badly from a 'lecture' from a dive master... or even worse (God forbid) that the dive pro might refuse to take them on X, Y or Z sites because of their diving standards...

Who's to say that an arbitrary depth limit doesn't affect one's enjoyment of the dive?

Nobody. I was merely stating that it didn't affect my enjoyment of the dives (and I am pretty demanding when it comes to getting my money's worth on an expensive holiday).

What if the depth were limited to 60' and, as I've heard, all the unbleached corals in the Maldives start much deeper?

I think the issue also had a lot to do with the remote location and consequent lack of medical (hyperbaric) treatment.

During my entire career as a dive pro, I've only ever had maybe 2 or 3 customers ever enquire about the provision of a chamber. I doubt many holiday divers visiting the Maldives consider such things when planning dives. Goes to show that regulations can exist to protect divers who otherwise wouldn't be aware of the risks they were taking.

Just because you haven't found any regulations yet that you couldn't live with doesn't mean such regulations might not be imposed in the future. Governments are not usually in the best place to decide what is best for scuba divers and their underwater environment.

I've heard of some very ludicrous regulations getting drafted. Luckily, the scuba industry (in a lot of primary diving destinations) is quite a powerful lobbying group. In most instances, bad legislation hasn't made it into practice. Thailand had a few battles. We did to with the local authorities in Subic Bay, after a double-fatality caused a silly knee-jerk, face-saving reaction by the authorities... but sense does prevail.

The worst I've seen is in the UK... with imposition of European regulations demanding the M26 DIN valve for Nitrox use.

That's because the "prudent" agency recommendations are often silly and impractical.

I don't see much that is silly or impractical with the various safe diving recommendations made by agencies.

Should a diver who has done a 4-day thread-bare McDiver course really be going deeper than 18m/60'? Should they really be more than a CESA breath from the surface? I think not.

Should a diver do deco, without doing training for deco? I think not.

Should a diver who is trained to rely upon a buddy, dive without a buddy? I think not.

Of course, it's all relative to experience and training. There is a point where a diver is capable of setting their own rules... the problem lies with the reality that some divers just want to exert their 'rights' and do stuff that they don't understand, aren't ready for...and are not capable of making informed decision about. Hence... recommendations from agencies.

When I've been diving with experienced divers without strict supervision, my experience is that no one really pushes the envelope. If the "prudent" recommendations were made more sensible, you'd find even more compliance.

I agree. But these recommendations aren't aimed at 'experienced' divers... the goal is to protect the 'inexperienced'.

...and, yes, I have seen plenty of inexperienced divers who, without strict supervision, would really push their envelope.

Not that you could nominate most of those divers for a Darwin Law... they just don't know what they need to know. But then again, what more can you expect from the thread-bare recreational diving training standards?

McDiver training = McDiver diving = McDiver recommendations.

Sure, but if that were really true, you'd see a lot more dive injuries and fatalities. The fact is, most new divers are scared by PADI et al. to even dip below 60' let alone 100'. Most of the real risks in inherent in scuba diving are very visible: running out of air, having a heart attack from being out of shape, boat ladder accidents, hazardous marine life. With computers that have graphic indicators of nitrogen loading (red zone, yellow zone, green zone), I'd say that even the DCS risk has been rendered very visible.

...and yet... the chambers are all still so busy...

That leaves narcosis, but how many recreational divers truly die or are injured because of narcosis each year?

In my mind... the involvement of narcosis has to be considered in any incident that happens below 100'. Unprovable. Undocumented. But still very real factor.

The question can always be asked: "If the same incident trigger had occured 40' shallower, would the result have been the same...?"

Maybe to some people. When I'm at the edge of a deep wall, my brain already registers I'm at the edge of a cliff. When I'm 100' below the surface, surviving solely because of a regulator attached to a a small tank of pressurized air, my brain is very well aware it's in a dangerous place.

Personally, I think that comes with experience. I've seen lots of novice divers who obviously don't have that awareness. Blissfully ignorant swimming around, oblivious to time, depth, air and/or buddy. I'm sure that many dive pros would testify to having seen the same behaviour in many divers.

I firmly believe that the respect truly comes with experience. Your brain understands the risk. My brain understands the risk. But for Joe McDiver... who just finished his AOW course and hit 50 dives without incident... thus a self-appraised diving god? Hmmm.....

Perhaps it is the fault of the agencies, by proclaiming 60' "safe" for newly "qualified" open water divers, they minimize all the risks of breathing underwater and convince smaller brains that there's nothing at all to worry about. Still, you'd think all that training on buddy systems, air sharing, OOA ascents, the need to monitor one's gauges and do pre-dive planning, you really believe that none of that registers to most people that the recreational pursuit of diving could potentially be hazardous?

At entry-level, many agencies deliberately press the message that diving is safe. It's something instructors are taught to do in their IDCs. The message is "Fun, Fun, Fun". Not much changes until the Rescue Diver course...

I think it's wrong to terrify novice divers with horror stories... but, at the same time, equally irresponsible to neglect teaching a profound respect for being underwater. I think the balance could be much better.