Before debating skills vs. equipment, please consider Risk Compensation

[captain]

This relates back to the early days of diving when the standard tank was the 72. The thought at the time being that the 72 would not allow the average diver to exceed no decompression limits. Doubles were discouraged as the greater amount of air could allow the diver to go beyond no decompression limits but may not have enough to complete the needed decompression. It those days more air was not necessarily considered safer.

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

Discussing personal responsibility is perfectly relevant when discussing risk compensation.

Nobody suggested it is or isn't relevant, just that its mention seems to be inevitable. Just like that other subject. It is sometimes relevant. Mentioning Godwin's law is not an assertion that the comparison is unfounded.

 

[Dtaine]

Nobody suggested it is or isn't relevant, just that its mention seems to be inevitable. Just like that other subject. It is sometimes relevant. Mentioning Godwin's law is not an assertion that the comparison is unfounded.

Interestingly enough, personal responsibility and risk compensation are both reasons why New Hampshire doesn't have a mandatory seat belt law for adults.

 

[RonzoTheGreat]

his thread doesn't really make any sense ... diving is not a "risk" by definition.

and being that one of my nicknames is redundant ron, don't for one second believe that i feel my own redundant system beats a buddy, but it sure as hell will keep me alive a little longer when the $hyt hits the fan.

i ONLY dive with people i trust.

i only dive with an extra bottle under my left arm.

i have backups to my backups.

but i also believe "It's not tragic to die, doing something you love."

 

[RonzoTheGreat]

Interestingly enough, personal responsibility and risk compensation are both reasons why New Hampshire doesn't have a mandatory seat belt law for adults.

thats not true, not at all, that is NOT the reason for hampshirites laws ... nor is it the reason some of the others have a no helmet law ...
however, it IS what they want you to perceive ...

 

[Dtaine]

thats not true, not at all, that is NOT the reason for hampshirites laws ... nor is it the reason some of the others have a no helmet law ...
however, it IS what they want you to perceive ...

Well then why don't you share what the real reason is?

 

[RonzoTheGreat]

fallout from insurance

 

[Dtaine]

fallout from insurance

right, a link to this info would be nice

 

[Thalassamania]

I think that Reg Braithwaite is right. Many's the time, across many activities, that I've extended myself a bit further than I might have; with the idea in the back of my head, "It's OK, I've compensated for this extra danger with thus-and-so." But I don't see that as much of a problem. I add a piece of gear that reduces risk (e.g., pony for J-valve) and I train to use that piece of gear; or I substitute a piece of gear for a skill (auxiliary for buddy-breathing) but again, I train so that the piece of gear does, in fact, reduce the risks. Where we run into problems is where we add gear, or substitute gear, for a skill and then don't really ask ourselves (and test) if the new solution is actually better. Then to top it off we often don't bother to develop the skill needed to effectively use the new technique or piece of gear.

There are many cases where a skill or technique can be traded off against a piece of gear, that, as we have seen almost always comes with it's own concomitant equipment maintenance as well skill learning and skill maintenance issues. We also need to balance the possibility of gear failure against the chance of human failure. It's an optimizing problem, but since I have a bit more control over my personal failures, so I tend to favor skill and technique based solutions over gear based solutions.

 

[mikemill]

his thread doesn't really make any sense ... diving is not a "risk" by definition.

Going into an environment in which we can not naturally survive isn't a risk?