Diver missing on Cape Breton in Nanaimo 11/24/07

[JeffG]

The important thing is to take the time to ask the question. If we do not the issue will be raised by the inevitable lawyer or journalist looking for a sensational story trying to paint anyone sinking ships as indifferent to the fate of divers.

Trust me " There're out there"

Hasn't been raised yet. Maybe you are feeling self important and trying to "fix" something that you see as being broken. (Did you just join some diving organization?)

Its not broken and you are taking steps that might impede my diving.

 

[dave4868]

I generally agree with you. I think that the important issues that need to be taken and documented is that the situation on the stern of Cape Breton is assessed and discussed with people who know what they are talking about and "consensus" is established.

Wearing my professional legal hat I get into the issue of "voluntary assumption of risk" in recreational activities. There are a number of factors involved in a judicial assessment of those cases. One of the most important factors is the ability to control the risk within reason.

If you use the standard of mitigating the risks so that a " reasonably trained diver that is reasonably forseen to be in this part of the wreck" is the standard my view is no one should be at that depth entering the wreck without training and must be expected to be using their training appropriately.

The problem is getting a handle on who is likely to be in this area of the Cape Breton. If no inexperienced or untrained divers are getting near this part of the ship the answer is clear.

The important thing is to take the time to ask the question. If we do not the issue will be raised by the inevitable lawyer or journalist looking for a sensational story trying to paint anyone sinking ships as indifferent to the fate of divers.

Trust me " There're out there"

In my view, it's more important to vociferously reject and squelch such discussions that revolve around limiting personal freedom for the so-called public good, especially when the benefit to the overall public good is so insignificant.

"If we can save just one life...." is something anathema to people who greatly value personal freedom.

If I understand you correctly, your suggestion is to pro-actively have the knowledgeable or invested participants assess and improve the safety of the activity because it will head-off the inevitable attempts by those who are less expert or invested.

Unfortunately, the pro-active approach will have the negative consequence of validating the insidious premise that the public has a right to regulate the activity in the first place, even though it is practiced by so few and has such little impact on society.

Such a well-meaning premise needs to discredited at every opportunity, otherwise it will continue to be expanded by those who feel so good about themselves to have taken care of others, even when it required limiting the freedom of those others to protect them from themselves.

We should counter the attraction of such "feel good" public policy rationale with a resounding and vehement public rejection until the idea of taking away personal freedom becomes the last thing considered.

Dave C

 

[wedivebc]

. (Did you just join some diving organization?)

.

You have no idea, do you

 

[wedivebc]

In my view, it's more important to vociferously reject and squelch such discussions that revolve around limiting personal freedom for the so-called public good, especially when the benefit to the overall public good is so insignificant.

"If we can save just one life...." is something anathema to people who greatly value personal freedom.

If I understand you correctly, your suggestion is to pro-actively have the knowledgeable or invested participants assess the safety of the activity because it will head-off the inevitable attempts by those who are less expert or invested.

Unfortunately, the pro-active approach will have the negative consequence of validating the insidious premise that the public has a right to regulate the activity in the first place, even though it is practiced by so few and has such little impact on society.

Such a well-meaning premise needs to discredited at every opportunity, otherwise it will continue to be expanded by those who feel so good about themselves to have taken care of others, even when it required limiting the freedom of those others to protect them from themselves.

We should counter the attraction of such "feel good" public policy rationale with a resounding and vehement public rejection until the idea of taking away personal freedom becomes the last thing considered.

Dave C

Consider this. If the scuba industry acts responsibly and regulates itself then the lawmakers who have little understanding of what we are all about will be less likely to regulate for us.

 

[JeffG]

Consider this. If the scuba industry acts responsibly and regulates itself then the lawmakers who have little understanding of what we are all about will be less likely to regulate for us.

Who are they (the scuba industry) to judge?

What problem are they trying to fix?

 

[JeffG]

In my view, it's more important to vociferously reject and squelch such discussions that revolve around limiting personal freedom for the so-called public good, especially when the benefit to the overall public good is so insignificant.

You have to understand in Canada (and especially BC), there is a feeling that government (or an agency) need to protect the citizens from themselves.

This is an another example of that.

(The Quebec government has imposed a government certification above and beyond standard certification.)


These movements need to be fought at the ground level and all the way up.

 

[JeffG]

You have no idea, do you

I was close. He isn't new, but he does have an agency agenda.

 

[dave4868]

Consider this. If the scuba industry acts responsibly and regulates itself then the lawmakers who have little understanding of what we are all about will be less likely to regulate for us.

A valid point, but any efforts made by the "scuba industry" to act "responsibly" and regulate itself for the primary purpose of placating lawmakers will only suffice until more zealous lawmakers step forward to "help" us.

This is probably just a disagreement over how far is too far and where the regulating will end. An honest difference of opinion and/or philosophy.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that individual decisions were the key factors in this death, not those of the "scuba industry"?

Unless one views individual decisions as somehow enmeshed and dependent on the actions of others, the individual who died was solely responsible, IMO.

Unfortunately, public policy rationale is headed ever increasingly toward the enmeshed view with no end in sight to the efforts to regulate.

We see it every day as freedoms get eroded little by little to protect people from themselves. How can one argue against being protected?

Even in today's pre-socialist political environment, it might still be possible to discourage lawmakers from excessive regulating by making it unpopular to do so.

I'm just doing my part by re-emphasizing the greater importance of individual freedom and responsibility.

Dave C

 

[JB]

I'm saddened that this again gets turned into a legal debate. Please don't impinge any further on personal freedom. It has become fashionable, or perhaps "looks better in court" if you do a root cause analysis, change procedures, pass new laws etc. everytime a tragedy strikes. Part of being an autonomous adult is the freedom and ability to assess risk and decide whether that risk is acceptable. More regulation should neither be sought nor encouraged. Personal freedom is paramount when it comes to guns (over and above public good), why should it not be equally paramount with regard to recreational activities. If holes are cut into the wreck and it no longer requires the skill, training and expertise to penetrate, the intrepid wreck diver will find it boring and perhaps move to a more challenging site! There is usually nothing much to see in these deep narrow recesses of the recently sunk ship, it's more the technical challenge, and thrill of ""discovery"" (going where no-one else or few others have been) that motivates the dive. For all the other divers the artificial reef is enough.
Fight for freedom not a police state. Accept that that there does not have to be someone to blame for every eventuality. Someone adequately trained and equipped can still die diving, if the ""holes in the swiss cheese"" line up. It's almost always a combination of individually minor errors, omissions, or circumstances, that when lined up in time and space, collectively cause a fatal outcome. No law or regulation is going to change that.

 

[lamont]

Its really very simple. If you want to go into an overhead environment (cave or wreck), you need to:

1. get training
2. use cave/overhead equipment
3. maintain a continuous guideline
4. stay within the depth of your training/mix
5. do not violate the rule of thirds on gas
6. carry 3 lights

No matter how much you attempt to "sanitize" a sunken wreck, it cannot be made "safe" for divers if they fail to follow those rules. Wrecks are *inherently* unsafe to dive into. The only "safe" choice is not to do it. But drowning after violating any of those rules is entirely foreseeable on the part of the diver.

We've got this attitude in the US (and apparently it is infecting canada) that life can be made "safe" and the walls of the asylum can be padded sufficiently and all the pointed corners rounded off so that nobody ever gets hurt. That is a false premise. Particularly when you step into environments like this, you need to take responsibility for yourself to not get hurt.