DevonDiver
N/A
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'.