Bad attitudes about solo diving are still prevalent

[2airishuman]

What you perceive as bad attitude may also be considered their concern for your safety. Would you prefer them to say "Yeah whatever, if your body washes up on the beach we'll clean it up with the seaweed."

I would prefer them to accept solo diving as a safe, appropriate activity just like other kinds of scuba diving.

This is the solo diving forum, right? I shouldn't have to explain that there is very little evidence to suggest that solo diving is unsafe, or that careful, intentional solo diving does not have a meaningfully higher risk profile than diving with a buddy. I don't think it should be necessary to go over this very basic ground, in the solo divers forum, for every thread.

 

[Marie13]

Your quarry sounds very attractive, I'll pass, thanks

I only tolerate the quarry as I can get wet and it’s my training ground for the Great Lakes. This year I did more Great Lakes than quarry dives.

 

[Bob DBF]

I shouldn't have to explain that there is very little evidence to suggest that solo diving is unsafe, or that careful, intentional solo diving does not have a meaningfully higher risk profile than diving with a buddy.

I thought it interesting that DAN changed how they presented their results once they separated lost buddies from solo divers in their data when calculating fatalities when diving alone. A direct comparison cannot be made in their reports because of the changes.



Bob

 

[Schwob]

I am not aware of any country that has an actual law against solo diving.

However, it appears in my limited experience, that the investigating authorities look at the recommendations of training agencies. Where there is a fatality, and breaches of 'recommended practice', there is an immediate focus on the break in 'normal, or recommended practice'.

One of the reasons that private sites, and many boats do not allow solo diving, is because this increases the risk to them being having to defend themselves for 'allowing an unsafe practice', i.e. a practice that deviates from the recommend practice by the majority of 'regulating or training agencies'.

Another truism, is that, in the majority of countries there is no legal requirement to be 'trained to dive' for recreation purposes.

One worrying thing, is that the number of private legal actions taken by surviving family against other divers in a group, the charter company, the skipper and crew seems to be on the increase. I can fully understand surviving family wanting a reason why a loved one died. But there seems to be a significant lack of understanding about what their family member was doing and the risks involved.

The old phrase, its my risk, i'll solo dive. Has turned into I think it's my risk, but if I don't survive I'll leave you to defend yourself against the authorities or my family's lawyers.
If you go to a beach on your own, walk off the beach for a dive, and die. Then it was your risk, and no one else is in the frame.
If you get on a boat with other divers, then potentially, the divers on the boat, the skipper, and the charter company can all be embroiled in any subsequent investigation. So it's now their risk, that doesn't seem fair to me.

Gareth

Gareth, I believe I covered this in my post. under local rules and regulations and privately owned places and hired boats... ...
Their rules should be honored, end of story. And if their rules allow me a certified solo diver to dive solo, they are more likely to get my business. There is nothing unfair that I am seeing here at all.

 

[chrisch]

...
I’m pretty sure that soon some countries will push for a bicycle license also and the need for a helmet, and that a point system would be introduced, and with the license holder not being allowed a bicycle with more than three gears for a period of two-three years. i.e. no performance bike allowed. Perhaps not even allowed to bicycle at night, motivation? Putting other cyclists at danger.

But of course this would never happen now would it? Because it would be completely irrational, then again who knows.

Australia mandates a safety helmet for all cyclists. As a result many people do not cycle. I am sure the pro-car lobby find this a very satisfactory outcome.

There is a case for insurance for cyclists, the UK has just changed it's laws due to some cyclists lack of regard to pedestrians. At some point this inevitably will require that bicycles are identifiable (i.e. registered) to verify the insurance.

There are many people who find cyclists a nuisance and would like to see them removed from the road so they can drive their SUV with even less care and attention. The anti-cyclist lobby tend to be the same people that then bang on about the "nanny state".

Life and politics are complex

 

[Chilly_Diver]

Australia mandates a safety helmet for all cyclists. As a result many people do not cycle. I am sure the pro-car lobby find this a very satisfactory outcome.

There is a case for insurance for cyclists, the UK has just changed it's laws due to some cyclists lack of regard to pedestrians. At some point this inevitably will require that bicycles are identifiable (i.e. registered) to verify the insurance.
There are many people who find cyclists a nuisance and would like to see them removed from the road so they can drive their SUV with even less care and attention. The anti-cyclist lobby tend to be the same people that then bang on about the "nanny state".

Life and politics are complex

Is there really an anti-cycling lobby? Is “big auto” really trying to stop people from riding bikes?

 

[chrisch]

Is there really an anti-cycling lobby? Is “big auto” really trying to stop people from riding bikes?

I don't think there is a "big auto" as such. There are a lot of noisy people on the Internet that are antagonistic about the humble pushbike. There certainly are organised groups pushing for things like the Australian model helmet law to be adopted by other countries.

Maybe I am too cynical but I always feel that this kind of propaganda for what is seen as "nanny state" legislation is being driven by motives other than the concern for a few people's safety. A cyclist, like a solo diver, is making a decision about their own level of risk management and using their knowledge to evaluate whether a helmet (or buddy) is a requirement.

I feel this is a personal choice and very much agree that passing laws is a heavy handed response to the small number of people that abuse the freedom to choose. Nevertheless the world pretty much agrees you cannot drive a motor vehicle without a seatbelt, or ride a motorbike without a helmet. (The latter is more relaxed in the USA in some states).

Bicycles are vulnerable road users and governments' response are things like cycle lanes and so on. There certainly is an organised lobby against such measures. Whether that constitutes an anti-cycling lobby per se is debatable. It is that group that I wished to identify, whatever you like to call it.

 

[TrimixToo]

Australia mandates a safety helmet for all cyclists. As a result many people do not cycle. I am sure the pro-car lobby find this a very satisfactory outcome.

There is a case for insurance for cyclists, the UK has just changed it's laws due to some cyclists lack of regard to pedestrians. At some point this inevitably will require that bicycles are identifiable (i.e. registered) to verify the insurance.

There are many people who find cyclists a nuisance and would like to see them removed from the road so they can drive their SUV with even less care and attention. The anti-cyclist lobby tend to be the same people that then bang on about the "nanny state".

Life and politics are complex

In addition, it's not at all clear that helmet laws do much good:

Head Injuries and Helmet Laws in Australia and New Zealand HH
Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[chrisch]

In addition, it's not at all clear that helmet laws do much good:

No. I think it is agreed that the reduction in cycling due to the need to wear a helmet is actually more effective than the helmet itself.

I am sure if the world bans solo diving very few people will die whilst diving alone and it would be declared a great success.

Sadly, evidence based policy making is not a feature of many governments. Governments need to get elected and so prefer to govern by what wins votes. Tax cuts that cannot be afforded and benefits that cannot be afforded by borrowing against future generations that cannot vote for example. The world could have stopped climate change 30 years ago and now we would all enjoy clean air and a booming economy based on renewable energy, but it wasn't (and still isn't) a vote winner.

Scuba divers are not numerous (or united) enough to be a voting body so whatever comes our way we must endure or enjoy irrespective of it's effectiveness.

 

[Gareth J]

We are getting a bit off topic, but...

I did read some information that basically said.

The health risk due to not wearing a helmet for cycling compared to the negative effect of discouraging cycling was so small as to be insignificant.
Similarly, the negative financial costs for treating cycling head injuries compared with the significant reduction in financial costs for treating other health issue that where improved because of the health benefits of cycling, made a mandatory cycle helmet law totally unjustifiable.
(That is not to say the effects on the individual or family may not be significant. But if you are looking at population health benefits and costs, a mandatory cycle law is not justifiable, and totally counterproductive.)

That said politicians don't make logical decisions, they do knee jerk reaction, or interested parties legislation.
e.g. 20mph zones produce more pollutants than 30mph zones (engines don't run efficiently at those speeds). The Dutch proved years ago that 20mph zones had did not reduce pedestrian injuries in most cases they has an increase in pedestrian injuries compared with 30mph zones. (I suspect both drivers AND pedestrians are tricked into a false sense of security). Either have cars and pedestrians, or pedestrian only zones. Its also worthy of note that very few dutch cyclist use cycle helmets!