In most respects, we accept that we are responsible for our safety in the water. We carry backup gear and stay with a buddy to limit the risk that a mistake or gear failure will result in a tragedy under the water. We use things like dive flags and SMBs to protect us near the surface. Most of all, we use our minds to observe and analyze situations so that we can anticipate the potential for trouble and act accordingly. This situation is really no different.
I don't question Crowley's observation at all. The news story suggests that there is an area that is supposed to be restricted to boats only, and that is where this accident occurred. The idea of such a restricted area makes a lot of sense to me.
Crowley tells us:
Some of the people operating out there are running lethally unsafe boats. Overcrowded, insufficient life jackets, no safety procedures, nothing.
As I see it, this is a general condemnation that tells us nothing about this particular incident, unless you think a lack of life jackets led to the diver being struck?
He also says:
seriously - I spent 3 years diving in this area, I know what it's like. The restrictions in place are not always enforced and boats in in the wrong place or divers being in the wrong place is often as much a matter of mis-translation as it is the quick buck.
That tells me that the authorities are doing a lousy job in making it clear who belongs where and slapping wrists when they end up in the wrong places. I suspect that extends to the dive shops and any boat rental shops also failing to make things clear to their customers. This is good general background that explains how a tourist could easily find himself somewhere he doesn't belong.
In this case, it appears the boat operator was a local transporting a bunch of tourists. There are pictures of the boat and the driver as part of the article. To me, the 47 year old operator doesn't look like a teenage wannabe drug runner in daddy's boat, and he isn't wearing sunglasses of any kind. There's also a pic of the police chatting with the three people pictured walking up the beach from the boat. If these were the tourists being carried, then this particular boat doesn't appear to have been particularly overcrowded.
The article says that the operator was being held "whilst a drug and alcohol reading will be performed." I don't know if this means that he will be released and the charges dropped if the tests come back clean, or if the charges will stand either way. I also don't know if this is pro-forma for Thailand, or there is something about this case that suggests a particular responsibility on the part of the driver. There is no mention in the article of an SMB or any other detail about the situation. The pictures also fail to show the area where the accident occurred or give a sense of the number of other boats and divers out there on that day.
I would classify myself as a sportsman who is attempting to be fair-minded. I have driven boats and the idea of seeing a diver a few feet below the surface in a marked channel where no diver should be seems unlikley. Throw in a strong sun and some glare coming off the water, and it's that much harder. While the general concept that some boaters out there operate in an unsafe manner putting divers at risk is strong, I'd rather not apply that to this incident until there is evidence to suggest it is the case. Based upon Crowley's observations, it sounds like it might do more for diver safety for the authorities to get clear on the restricted areas than to crucify one boat driver. Don't get me wrong, though, if the evidence says he ran over a dive flag to hit the guy while washing down another pill with a shot of whiskey, then I'm all for the fullest extent of the law landing on him hard.
