The Big Secret...

[Goose75]

...
Where I live in Canada, you can’t buy a gun without taking a safety course, you can’t operate a boat or PWC without operator card and when I bought my last truck I had to show my valid license, proof of insurance and I had to listen to the sales agent go over all of the safety issues regarding the vehicle. I don’t really know about the plane, because in my wacky life everyone I know who bought a plane was a licensed pilot. Go figure.

Heffey,
Things are a little different in the US and state-to-state. I purchased and operate a small (19ft) boat without any insurance or operators licence. It is neither required nor common. You can buy a plane without a licence but you cannot fly it without one. It is actually quite common in the experimental market. We are not required to have a drivers licence to buy a car. The large corporate lot's often require you show one but it is for liability rather than requirement. Proof of insurance is required to get a licence or tags. The only requirement to buying a weapon is that you have the money and do not fail the background check (basically drug, mental and legal restrictions). I can buy an AM/FM transmitter but I need to get a licence to broadcast. The list goes on. By nature US and State laws typically regulate use rather than aquistion. In the US to require a licence to purchase scuba equipment would be to increase restriction to a very select group of commodities which are typically deefense or security related.

 

[Heffey]

Heffey,
Things are a little different in the US and state-to-state. I purchased and operate a small (19ft) boat without any insurance or operators licence. It is neither required nor common. You can buy a plane without a licence but you cannot fly it without one. It is actually quite common in the experimental market. We are not required to have a drivers licence to buy a car. The large corporate lot's often require you show one but it is for liability rather than requirement. Proof of insurance is required to get a licence or tags. The only requirement to buying a weapon is that you have the money and do not fail the background check (basically drug, mental and legal restrictions). I can buy an AM/FM transmitter but I need to get a licence to broadcast. The list goes on. By nature US and State laws typically regulate use rather than aquistion. In the US to require a licence to purchase scuba equipment would be to increase restriction to a very select group of commodities which are typically deefense or security related.

I know all about the U.S. and I don't disagree to any great extent with any of your assertions.

I was born & raised on personal rights and freedoms and feel that the government should not be involved unless my rights and freedoms are impinging on someone else’s right and freedoms.

You may think that the above statement does not work with my feelings that a person must be certified to buy scuba equipment. The two are compatible and it is all about personal rights. You see, I surmise that people have the right to know that the product they are buying may very well kill them.

Some products have common sense dangers related to them. We know hot things burn, sharp things cut, and we even know that we can drown in water. Unfortunately, the dangers of DCS and overexpansion injuries are not intuitive. Actually, most non-divers I talk to know about the bends and think that it is only a problem if you dive really deep.

I don’t have a problem with the buyer being warned about the dangers and then signing a waiver in lieu of certification. The important part is that they are informed of the danger and then it is perfectly fine with me if they kill themselves because they chose not to heed the warnings.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe the waiver is a viable solution. The legal climate of the day and record keeping issues would be a real hardship in the dive shops.

 

[tedtim]

I don’t have a problem with the buyer being warned about the dangers and then signing a waiver in lieu of certification. The important part is that they are informed of the danger and then it is perfectly fine with me if they kill themselves because they chose not to heed the warnings.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe the waiver is a viable solution. The legal climate of the day and record keeping issues would be a real hardship in the dive shops.

AFAIK, you may be able to waive some of your own rights, but if you die, your family can still take legal action. You can't waive the rights of others. A friend of mine who owns a charter operation is caught in just this situation. A diver signed the waiver, got himself into trouble, and died. His family is pursuing the litigation route. The accident happened over two years ago.

 

[StSomewhere]

You can't waive the rights of others.

Nor can you waive other's negligence.

 

[GrierHPharmD]

He's got a point about being able to dive without certification, though. If you want to read case histories, look in any of the recent DAN Accident and Injury reports. They're full of interesting stories about uncertified divers meeting unpleasant outcomes.

(I think that the DAN report should be required reading for OW students. It really emphasizes the importance of mastering the basic safe diving practices. But I digress...)

 

[Goose75]

I know all about the U.S. and I don't disagree to any great extent with any of your assertions.

I was born & raised on personal rights and freedoms and feel that the government should not be involved unless my rights and freedoms are impinging on someone else’s right and freedoms.

You may think that the above statement does not work with my feelings that a person must be certified to buy scuba equipment. The two are compatible and it is all about personal rights. You see, I surmise that people have the right to know that the product they are buying may very well kill them.

Some products have common sense dangers related to them. We know hot things burn, sharp things cut, and we even know that we can drown in water. Unfortunately, the dangers of DCS and overexpansion injuries are not intuitive. Actually, most non-divers I talk to know about the bends and think that it is only a problem if you dive really deep.

I don’t have a problem with the buyer being warned about the dangers and then signing a waiver in lieu of certification. The important part is that they are informed of the danger and then it is perfectly fine with me if they kill themselves because they chose not to heed the warnings.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe the waiver is a viable solution. The legal climate of the day and record keeping issues would be a real hardship in the dive shops.

I don't know that I particulary agree or disagree with your point. I'm merely highlighting that in the US market, a certification requirement needs to be self imposed by the industry rather than the government. In our legal system, precedence carries into other applications. Enourmous pressure from unrelated interests would be against regulation on this kind of product. I can see lawyers argueing that baseball bats should be the next market since they are common weapons used in crime. It's a pandora's box for our system.

 

[serambin]

The existence of private certification agencies and the generally-recognized requirement to obtain certification protects the sport of diving from government regulation.

Other posters alluded to this above but none have put it this plainly. All the way up into the '70's you could walk into any sporting goods shop, plunk you money down and get whatever diving gear you wanted. (The guy I bought my first tank from had never seen a c-card.) As a result untrained divers were getting into and causing more and more diving accidents. This stirred up public concern especially in locations where diving iwas popular to the point where many local governments began passing laws and even requiring divers to obtain permits to dive in local waters.

This intrusion of government regulation into the sport of diving was the subject of many editorials and much discussion at the time and resulted in the general industry push to require certification in order to obtain equipment and supplies (fills) that remains in effect to this day.

Case en point: If sharks attacks get publicised, then politicians will pass laws banning shark-feeding dives in order to be seen to be "doing something" about it.

If untrained divers start getting in lots of accidents, then politicians will be forced to leglislate "safe" diving in order to give the appearance that they are "doing something" about it.

The certification agencies and the requirement for certification protects us from such government actions and even provides a means to lobby legislatures to pass laws that are favorable to the diving community.

BTW there is an OSHA regulation that requires employers to ensure that any compressed gas cylinders their employees handle are visually inspected annually. So no, you don't legally have to get an annual vis but the dive store or dive boat owner legally has to make sure you have one before he can let his employees touch your tanks.

I really don't remember any of this. I started diving in 1967, no c-cards and most towns had a refill station, often the firehouse. There may have been a larger percentage of accidents than you see today, but look at the changes in gear and physiology science. There were no BCD's, no octo's, lousy tables, and no one had a clue about how to prevent the bends except those tables.

Now I'm not bashing certification, but people did get by without them. On the other hand, agencies have funded research to help produce better tables/algorithms as well as helping us to understand issues related to diving safety.

One other point is that every LDS in the USA has some type of certification agency backing them. What this means to most of us is the likelihood of getting bad air is greatly reduced.

Literature is one of the areas I believe the agencies have not only failed, but set back the sport. I have dive books from the late 60's and early 70's that provide better overall information on the 'skills' of diving than any of the current OW cert books I've seen. Sad but true. I think they are afraid you'll try to learn on your own like the founders of the first agencies did.

Stan

 

[Heffey]

I can see lawyers argueing that baseball bats should be the next market since they are common weapons used in crime. It's a pandora's box for our system.

I don't know, makes as much sense as gun control.