First, what divers do is what divers do. People do all kinds of things. Operators, similarly, do all kinds of things.
Trust me, you really don't want to get into a game of "I'll show you mine" with someone who makes their living in the Japanese market, because we (as the entire Japanese dive industry) simply do far more insane stuff of all kinds because lawsuits are not really a market driving force. (For someone interested in just what sort of things I have seen pass without comment, ask in a different thread.)
But that's not really germane, what divers and operators do, because divers have no particular obligation to do anything. They know the rules (or they would if PADI was internally consistent about their own rules). And operators get sued out of existence when they kill divers.
It is only for me the fact that PADI violates their own standards (no overhead and always have direct vertical access) in allowing overhead envornment training in Cavern, Ice, and Wreck that is the problem. Now that they have a tech side which teaches diving in environments presumed to have no direct access to the surface, there's no reason to have overhead environment training on the recreational side, other than to pandering to the market, and member base who would have to change what they do.
If we go on safety records, then drunk driving is safe, nearly as safe as driving in general is. And the personal costs of avoiding drunk driving (having to have a designated driver, having to catch a cab, not having the car in the morning, not drinking) are
real costs. It is only the odd accident that makes us even care about whether someone is drunk driving. The safety record of drunk driving is well established by the
millions of people who do it every day. I simply have never met anyone who drinks (except those who live in metropolitan areas with extensive public transport) who has not drove drunk, and many/most pretty regularly drive drunk. It is just the foolish young men who drink too much, and drive too fast that really cause problems with drunk driving, and the occasional outlier wastrel.
And yet, these are simply not arguments for allowing drunk driving. "Getting away with it regularly" never is a reason to abolish a rule, for anyone but a teenager stickin to the man, YEAH~! Examples of people getting away with foolish/risky behavior are just that, examples of people getting away with it. Getting away with it is not even close to a sensible grounds for formulating rules.
I do not have to imagine much going wrong to change a "simple swim through a wreck" into a problem.
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba...6739-mask-removal-gas-sharing-practice-2.html