@Angelo Farina do you have any distinction between the "hardly any plan required to stay safe" dives and otherwise? Since you don't use the word "technical" to differentiate, is there some description or division that is commonly drawn on your side of the pond?
We have techincal diving here, and the boundary between recreational and technical is sharp. As said, here we do not have many "shops", instead we have many "diving centers". They are clearly differentiated between recreational and technical.
In the first ones you only get air and nitrox, the max depth is set to the rec limit (usually 50m), and divers are required to show normal rec certifications.
In technical diving centers (or diving clubs) they use advanced gas mixtures, both for bottom and for deco (they use accelerated deco, which is not used by rec divers), rebreathers, and there are no depth limits.
The only significant difference between US agencies and European no-profit organizations is in the concept that, diving at depths greater than 30m, a planned deco is the way to go, instead of attempting to narrowly avoiding deco obligation.
It is more a cultural factor: when things are going close to be problematic, we prefer to consider them already fully problematic, and treat it consequently.
You see this cultural difference in many other fields, such as social security, public health, crime suppression, risk management in engineering, warfare, etc.
And in many of these fields I admit that the "American way" has some substantial benefits. In general, however, it is hard to say that "planning for the worst", as we are used to do, is entirely wrong.
Certainly it is more limiting, it has larger costs, it requires more knowledge.
But it is a safer way of living, resulting, in the long term, in better health, longer life, more predictable future. Perhaps less funny, fewer surprises...
Sorry for wandering off topic!