- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,802
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
Mike, what sense does the 60-foot limit make? Why not 50? Why not 70? If we really need a limit, pick one that has a history of actually working: 30 ft.
Individual Rights, and other Myths
- Thread starter Mike Boswell
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
OP
Mike Boswell
Contributor
Better yet, you could set the limit for beginners based on their individual capabilities - i.e. "You can scuba dive to twice the depth that you can free dive." The logic there is that a diver can be confident that she can make a CESA because she has demonstrated that she can swim that distance underwater. I suspect this would limit most of today's new scuba divers to only 20-30 feet, but it would encourage people to improve their swimming and diving skills.
It has been my experience, though, that most new divers are soon going deeper than 60 feet. I don't know if dive operators follow the recommendation or not - I can't recall anyone on a dive boat ever bringing it up. Perhaps guided dives are exempt.
DevonDiver
N/A
Better yet, increase the emphasis and importance on training divers to set their own personal limit, based upon a realistic awareness of their own capabilities balanced against the risks they will face.
The current 'system' - and attitude of many dive pros/operations - far too readily allows divers to view a c-card as a 'license' that 'entitles' them to dive to X, Y or Z depth. Those with experience know that the c-card isn't what counts... the training does, yet that is very inconsistent,... but the actual capabilities and confidence of the individual diver is what forms the foundations of their relative safety.
It's easy to discuss this subject with regard to 'personal responsibility', but divers need to be taught respect for depth. Only then will they be able to take that responsibility.
Nothing I've seen in the training systems of the major scuba agencies teaches that respect. Nothing.
(and to be honest, these debates on 'rights' do little to teach respect for depth either)
The current 'system' - and attitude of many dive pros/operations - far too readily allows divers to view a c-card as a 'license' that 'entitles' them to dive to X, Y or Z depth. Those with experience know that the c-card isn't what counts... the training does, yet that is very inconsistent,... but the actual capabilities and confidence of the individual diver is what forms the foundations of their relative safety.
It's easy to discuss this subject with regard to 'personal responsibility', but divers need to be taught respect for depth. Only then will they be able to take that responsibility.
Nothing I've seen in the training systems of the major scuba agencies teaches that respect. Nothing.
(and to be honest, these debates on 'rights' do little to teach respect for depth either)
MIKE i am nor refreencing any regulation in fact.. i am saying that If a regulatory agency (GOVERNMENT) said 60 foot is a safe liimit
that there are those who will say 60 is safe- no matter what and 61 is not. because they trust the regulation agency because it has a government label and there for must know something.
that there are those who will say 60 is safe- no matter what and 61 is not. because they trust the regulation agency because it has a government label and there for must know something.
- Messages
- 100,565
- Reaction score
- 103,771
- Location
- On the Fun Side of Trump's Wall
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
... of course, everyone knows where they were ... in bed with the bankers ...
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
- Messages
- 100,565
- Reaction score
- 103,771
- Location
- On the Fun Side of Trump's Wall
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
I think I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not understanding how making up scenarios that have nothing to do with the reality of the situation is helpful.
Nobody is setting a depth requirement ... or even suggesting one. PADI ... despite what they believe of themselves ... doesn't set standards for the world. Scuba diving isn't based on a set of hard and fast rules ... it can't be, because there are too many variables involved for those rules to be effective. It's about using good judgment ... and that's the "responsibility" part of the equation.
If you want freedom ... in any aspect of life ... you must take responsibility for the consequences of your choices. It is when people don't take that responsibility that government regulation becomes a consideration.
People like to complain about the inadequacies of the training agencies ... and they most definitely have some, to my concern ... but they are the reason why we don't currently have government regulators breathing down our necks. For all their faults, the very best way to keep government out of scuba diving isn't to disdain the agencies and promote an atmosphere of total freedom to do whatever you please ... it's to embrace the system of self-imposed limits that currently keep us a self-regulated activity, and "police" our own. At least that way it's divers who are making the decisions about what's responsible, and not bureaucrats.
In any endeavor in which more than one person is involved, there needs to be a framework of behavior which is considered by those engaged as reasonable and responsible. Without such an agreement, what y'all are proposing is an anarchic approach, which will only guarantee that we all end up under the very burden of regulation that you claim you don't want.
As my dad would put it ... that's life ... deal with it ...
.... Bob (Grateful Diver)
waterpirate
Contributor
While this has been entertaining.....
I think the point needs to be conceeded that in 2011 we are standing on the shoulders of giants, some of whom paid the ultimate price.
The training standards and guidelines are designed to help the average diver develop over time without having to repeat others mistakes. Some of the limits may be arbitrary, but it is what it is. If you are not the average diver and develop faster or better than most, bully for you. If you feel like deep air or bounceing is ok with you than again buly for you.
The proponenants on the Board of this type of diving are not average, they are not new, and they understand the risks to themselves. New or average divers are none of the above. That is the objection.
So while you can make a lot of distinctions and definitions fit what ever you think it should fit under the context of rec diving, it must be followed by the statement " it is ok for me because I am experianced, but not for you" Those kinds of statements cause people who fit the latter to do things beyond thier limits.
Eric
I think the point needs to be conceeded that in 2011 we are standing on the shoulders of giants, some of whom paid the ultimate price.
The training standards and guidelines are designed to help the average diver develop over time without having to repeat others mistakes. Some of the limits may be arbitrary, but it is what it is. If you are not the average diver and develop faster or better than most, bully for you. If you feel like deep air or bounceing is ok with you than again buly for you.
The proponenants on the Board of this type of diving are not average, they are not new, and they understand the risks to themselves. New or average divers are none of the above. That is the objection.
So while you can make a lot of distinctions and definitions fit what ever you think it should fit under the context of rec diving, it must be followed by the statement " it is ok for me because I am experianced, but not for you" Those kinds of statements cause people who fit the latter to do things beyond thier limits.
Eric
vladimir
The Voice of Reason
- Messages
- 46,276
- Reaction score
- 69,044
- # of dives
- I just don't log dives
Mike Boswell, didn't you start an epic thread some time back, suggesting that we should all be happy to allow the TSA to grope us and do an occasional body-cavity search in exchange for the warm fuzzy feeling of safety that we'd get in return? This is just a continuation of that thread, in many respects.
A good guiding principle comes from Milton Friedman: whenever an activity creates an externality, regulation is appropriate. Is that power plant dumping pollution into the environment, burdening people with health-care costs, and lending a competitive advantage to the polluter over the non-polluter? Then emissions controls are appropriate, because the free market cannot properly discount those costs.
You have to use a little bit of judgement, though. How much cost to our fellow citizens does driving without a seatbelt impose (a lot), and how much of an imposition is it to wear a seatbelt (not much). Then seat-belt laws are appropriate. How much cost to our fellow citizens does reckless diving impose? Practically none, I would posit. And the imposition? In my opinion, it is much greater than wearing a seatbelt. I would never skip a drive because I had to wear a seatbelt, but I would certainly skip dives where, say, depth limits were imposed, or solo diving wasn't allowed.
A good guiding principle comes from Milton Friedman: whenever an activity creates an externality, regulation is appropriate. Is that power plant dumping pollution into the environment, burdening people with health-care costs, and lending a competitive advantage to the polluter over the non-polluter? Then emissions controls are appropriate, because the free market cannot properly discount those costs.
You have to use a little bit of judgement, though. How much cost to our fellow citizens does driving without a seatbelt impose (a lot), and how much of an imposition is it to wear a seatbelt (not much). Then seat-belt laws are appropriate. How much cost to our fellow citizens does reckless diving impose? Practically none, I would posit. And the imposition? In my opinion, it is much greater than wearing a seatbelt. I would never skip a drive because I had to wear a seatbelt, but I would certainly skip dives where, say, depth limits were imposed, or solo diving wasn't allowed.
Having retired from the United States Air Force after 28 years of service, I can say I spent my adult life defending the rights of Americans. I defended other citizens right to burn the American flag. Would I burn the flag? No. Is that a right? Yes. Just because I wouldn't do it, or the act is repugnant to me, does not limit another's right to do so. IMHO less government is better government. Elected officials making laws and regulations "for my own good" scare me greatly. A little government intervention is much like being a little pregnant. Let's not even get into the true motivations of politicians.
Similar threads
