Belize: Death of Corey Monk

[MikeFerrara]

I'm gonna guess, it's economics? Sounds like a good idea though.

There's more to it. We have too many laws and the "wrong" laws as it is. I don't know about the rest of you but I don't want the government sticking their noses into what I wear...and that includes seat belts and helmets. If someone wants to wear some sort of radiolocation device (they've been around for a long time), then let them. I don't know of a law that prevents them from doing so.

Hey on second thought! If the device records the dive profile and is capable of radio communications we could ticket folks for doing dives that the government doesn't think they should do...how cool would that be?...you went too deep/long, that'll be $250...your ascent was too fast, that'll be $150 and your diving "license" is suspended until you pass a $300 safe diver update at you local nanny state government office.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Deaths are attributed to NOT having a seat belt and thousands of accident fatalities were prevented by the use of seat belts.

If you do some research, the actual studies are not so clear cut. For about every study that says injuries have been reduced by seat belts there's another that says it isn't so. Some types of accidents and injuries seem to have actually increased.

Additionally, how seat belt laws came about in this country is a rather interesting story. From memory...some politition (forget who) proposed (and I believe passed)legislation to require airbags. Airbags were new and expensive at the time and the auto manufacturers didn't want to add that cost to the vehicles for fear of hurting sales. In response some auto manufacturers got together and formed their own lobby group (forget the name) and got the government to back off the airbag thing by agreeing to back a law that required the use of seat belts.

Note how seat belt laws don't apply to school busses and trucks? Do you think this might all be driven by money and politics just a bit?

What is confusing you is we are not saying the lack of a dive buddy CAUSED the accident, we are saying that if the diver had a dive buddy he probably would have survived the accident.

Maybe.

His chances of survival would increase enormously.

Do you have data or is this just your guess?

If you wear a seat belt your chances of surving a crash increase. If you dive with a buddy your chances of surviving an accident increase. get it?

No, I don't get it.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Too much govt regulation on too many things as it is.

And finally you can't regulate stupid. Solo diving is not stupid, deep diving is not stupid, night diving solo is not stupid, deep night diving solo is not stupid. Diving at night, solo, deep, with no way to tell how deep you are and without sufficient gas for the dive (since you don't know how deep you are you don't know how much gas you need) is real stupid, even if it's a one time thing. One time is all it takes to put someone in a box.

All a location recording device would do is let them find the body and if it's in a bad place risk more lives trying to recover it.

Regardless of experience it also sets a bad example for those who are paying you to guide them, watch over em, and keep them safe. While it is tragic that this happened it is the result of diver error alone and from all accounts it was an incident where the error was not only fatal but was a conscious choice. His comp did not crap out on the dive, never had one in the first place. No plan or if there was one it was piss poor. No one knew where he was going and how long he'd be. Had he made it back after something like this he should have been fired. I bet the boat's insurance company will be taking a look at what they let the crew do when on board even in their off time. If not then they are stupid as well.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Thank you Peter. I think you have nailed on the head what the crux of the argument is. Most of the people posting seem to have issues with a person diving alone without carrying the appropriate equipment, first and foremost, not just whether they are certified as a Solo Diver or have the requisite experience.

Most of the solo divers, OTOH, have been defensive from the beginning of the previous thread as well as this one, even before criticisms were levelled. They also appear to have disregarded the main issue of suitable equipment for the dive and changed the argument to become their right to dive alone.

What is the "proper" equipment for a solo dive? Don't bother to answer because we won't even be able to reach a consensus for what the "proper" equipment is for a buddy dive.

Wouldn't it be nice if our actions didn't affect others. However, when any of us has a dive accident, we put others at risk trying to save/recover us;

Nonsense. When we dive no one is obligated to rescue or recover us. If they put themselves at risk, it's because they chose to do it and put themselves at risk.

affect dives in that area that day or even week;

LOL, well, divers who just aren't very good divers mess up dive all the the time. I've pulled my share of them out of the water.

cost taxpayers a lot of money for EMS; take up space in a chamber/hospital that others could use; divert the resources of medical personnel to take care of us instead of others; leave behind family and friends; and haunt all those who witnessed our accident/death. Most of us think about how we can reduce the risk of diving and make our dives safer to avoid not only dying or hurting ourselves, but also negatively affecting others.

Nobody needs to dive and if it's such a strain on society it might be best to just outlaw diving?

 

[Waterskier1]

Nonsense. When we dive no one is obligated to rescue or recover us. If they put themselves at risk, it's because they chose to do it and put themselves at risk.

This is not necessarily true. Our "unofficial" USCG motto: "You got to go out, you don't have to come back".

I suspect there are other non-volunteer rescue services that might also "be obligated" as a condition of their employment too.

Otherwise, even being a "Government employee" (Government Property??), I agree with you. We don't need more laws and Government regulation.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Well nobody gets drafted into the USCG but, even so, I'll bet there are more rescues and recoveries done over boaters and swimmers than divers.

I don't know for certain but I would imagine that the riskiest part of that rescue work is dealing with the surface sea conditions that exist when the need for rescue arises.

I also suspect that diving is such a small percentage of any of it that if we were going to make legal changes to limit the risk or cost of rescuers, diving would be way down on the list.

We lose a lot of boaters in the great lakes...they go out and just don't come back. Lots of others get stuck and need to get towed back. At one time I think you could get towed in for free but from what I've heard it's gotten pretty expensive.

 

[scubadale]

This is not necessarily true. Our "unofficial" USCG motto: "You got to go out, you don't have to come back".

I suspect there are other non-volunteer rescue services that might also "be obligated" as a condition of their employment too.

Otherwise, even being a "Government employee" (Government Property??), I agree with you. We don't need more laws and Government regulation.

I do appreciate the armed services and as a diver especially the USCG, service members still made the CHOICE to sign up.

 

[Waterskier1]

I do appreciate the armed services and as a diver especially the USCG, service members still made the CHOICE to sign up.

This is true, but once that choice is made, you have no other choices (besides to go AWOL and jail). My point is that the statement implies that only volunteers are the only ones who might be executing a rescue, and that is not totally true.

Well nobody gets drafted into the USCG but, even so, I'll bet there are more rescues and recoveries done over boaters and swimmers than divers.

I don't know for certain but I would imagine that the riskiest part of that rescue work is dealing with the surface sea conditions that exist when the need for rescue arises.

I also suspect that diving is such a small percentage of any of it that if we were going to make legal changes to limit the risk or cost of rescuers, diving would be way down on the list.

We lose a lot of boaters in the great lakes...they go out and just don't come back. Lots of others get stuck and need to get towed back. At one time I think you could get towed in for free but from what I've heard it's gotten pretty expensive.

Your observations are generally correct. Regarding towing costs, you can contribute the high cost of towing to the towing operators. The USCG never charges for towing. (There might be certain unique situations, such as towing a seized vessel, because of Law Enforcement actions). We used to be able to hook up and tow at will. Now, we must first broadcast the need, and standby for a reasonable amount of time, for a tow op to arrive to take the tow. Of course, if there were emergency or imminent danger, we can do what is necessary immediately. The all has to do with regulations prohibiting the Government performance in direct competition with private industry (i.e., the government taking jobs away from the civilian public). There are some areas where there is no commercial towing available, and there we can tow without a problem (nor a fee).

 

[peterbj7]

What is the "proper" equipment for a solo dive? Don't bother to answer because we won't even be able to reach a consensus for what the "proper" equipment is for a buddy dive

You're talking absolute rubbish, and I suspect you know it. The industry is pretty well agreed on appropriate and usable rules for what redundant gear should be carried. Not 100%, but certainly 90%. Sure, there is no such thing as perfect redundancy and despite your preparations you may come unstuck, but that's no justification for ignoring the recommendations completely.

When we dive no one is obligated to rescue or recover us. If they put themselves at risk, it's because they chose to do it and put themselves at risk.

Not so. I am obliged by law to try to find/help/save/recover you if you were diving with my operation. And I can be held criminally liable if the authorities believe I was in any way responsible for or compliant with what happened to you. That's true here in Belize, I know it's true in Britain, and I'm sure it's true in the US. It's true in the Egyptian Red Sea. And in the Maldives. And in Australia. In fact, I think it's true in every country I've ever dived in.

It's very simple - if I know of your attitude before I take you out you'll be looking for another operator. And since I'll feel duty bound to warn others you may have a long search. And your first dive with me when you behave seriously irresponsibly will be your last.

We live in a society in which we look out for each other. Society norm provides that the emergency services WILL look for you and try to save you, and that is enshrined in law and practice in most civilised countries. I'm not familiar with detail of law in the US, but in Britain if by your reckless behaviour you do endanger people you should reasonably have expected would try to save you you can be held responsible to them. Suppose by your own reckless driving you're in a car crash - do you think that EMS will try to get you out? If they're hurt is that their responsibility or yours? What if your house catches fire?

The expression "no man is an island" is absolutely true these days.

 

[pilot fish]

There's more to it. We have too many laws and the "wrong" laws as it is. I don't know about the rest of you but I don't want the government sticking their noses into what I wear...and that includes seat belts and helmets. If someone wants to wear some sort of radiolocation device (they've been around for a long time), then let them. I don't know of a law that prevents them from doing so.

Hey on second thought! If the device records the dive profile and is capable of radio communications we could ticket folks for doing dives that the government doesn't think they should do...how cool would that be?...you went too deep/long, that'll be $250...your ascent was too fast, that'll be $150 and your diving "license" is suspended until you pass a $300 safe diver update at you local nanny state government office.

I was only referring to the locator part- sending out a signal that will make recovery of lost divers easier- global positioning? Have a computer chip in bc, kind of thing. My guess is that would add a lot of cost to a dive? Don't they put puter chips in pets to help find them when thy're lost?