There's so much you don't take into account. All of this stuff you talk about, you talk about in absolute terms, but it's not nearly as absolute as you seem to think it is.
The only truly correct answer to most scuba-related questions is "it depends" ... that said, some broad statements are generally more true than others. With new divers, the lack of context due to experience is what will increase their risks of a bad outcome.
How much risk is acceptable is a matter of personal choice ... but it helps to be able to make an informed decision. Inexperienced divers who solo dive don't have sufficient knowledge to make informed decisions ... they're just "gambling" that it'll turn out alright.
What if a person is worse off with a buddy because that buddy is incompetent and thus puts the competent diver into situations he otherwise wouldn't have ended up in?
Then you did a poor job of choosing a dive buddy. Lack of buddy skills isn't a good reason to go solo. Choose better dive buddies instead.
What if having a buddy makes a particular diver more complacent, or more willing to enter into a risky situation, or wanting to "impress" their buddy by doing something foolish?
That's a sign that the diver isn't very responsible ... in which case, solo diving's probably not a good idea either. A person who is willing to take risks to impress someone else is probably the last person who should consider solo ... because they're not going to be any less willing to take those risks whether or not they have a dive buddy. It's a personality thing.
What if by solo-diving a particular diver becomes more adept/proficient thus increasing the likelihood he can assist a buddy should an emergency arise while buddy diving?
Solo diving doesn't improve your buddy skills ... nor does it increase your situational awareness. Solo diving doesn't teach you self-reliance. Those are things you need to learn BEFORE becoming a solo diver ... not the other way around.
What if a new diver is such a "natural" at diving that solo diving, for them, is no more risky than two new "lousy" divers buddy diving?
Most folks want to believe they're a better diver than they actually are ... it's a natural human response. Many dive businesses count on this, and will sell you your next course by convincing you that you're a "natural".
If you really want to find out how "natural" you are, sign up for a class with an instructor who isn't going to feed you that BS, and insist that he challenge you. Even better if the session is videotaped, so you can see for yourself just how "natural" you look underwater.
Having experienced a few of those, I can tell you it's a real eye-opener.
Is mastersniper, for example, such a diver? I don't know, I've never dove with him...but I think it is a mistake to say that, across the board, no-one, as a novice diver, is sufficiently competent to safely and intelligently solo dive.
Even someone with a great deal of "natural" ability ... and I've known a few of those ... will still lack the context to know how to make good decisions underwater.
Confidence and ability will only get you so far ... it's knowing when to say "that's not a good idea" that someone can consider themselves sufficiently competent to safely and intelligently solo dive.
Also, who are you to determine what level of risk a particular individual should find acceptable?
That's not what he's doing ... he's trying to explain why the new diver doesn't have the tools to determine what level of risk they're taking ... and until you can do that, you have no way of knowing whether it's acceptable or not.
There are people who will say the risk of diving, period, isn't worth the risk. Have a buddy/don't have a buddy, calm water/choppy water...a number of people will say it doesn't matter-too risky an endeavor, period. But obviously for people like us (and millions of others) the risk is worth the reward. Likewise, the risk of solo diving can be worth the reward to a particular new diver, even if you don't think so.
Fine ... and there's a reason why the only agency that teaches people to solo dive requires a minimum of 100 dives before doing so ... maybe, just maybe, they understand a reality that you haven't figured out yet.
Solo diving for a new diver is risky, but a cave diver is probably more at risk for death than a new diver is when that new diver is diving in a calm OW environment. Cave diving has the highest fatality rate of all the certifiable diving disciplines, yet divers regularly embark into this realm.
Ah ... now you're onto something. Look at the primary reason why cave divers die ... in almost all cases it's because they exceeded their training ... or broke one of the five basic rules that every cave diver learns in their introductory class.
Their death is very much analogous to the new diver who was trained to dive with a dive buddy going off on their own to explore new horizons ... without a damn clue how to prepare for it, or what to do if something goes wrong.
If "statistics", or "likelihood of catastrophe" is the issue here, then you should regard all cave divers as stupid for deciding to cave dive (even with proper training) because that training still doesn't do away with the high likelihood of death. The beauty and solitude caves offer is, to some, so appealing that they will venture into them despite the amount of risk involved.
And there is a beautiful example of the kind of ignorance and assumption that will get the new diver in trouble ... you assumed something in that statement that isn't true. The cave diver who follows his or her training will almost never become a statistic ... because they planned, prepared, and executed their dive as they were trained to do. It's the ones who take shortcuts who get themselves killed. Go look at the several threads on ScubaBoard about the diver who recently disappeared in Vortex. He's a perfect example of the analogy you're trying to make.
So too is it the case that some new divers will venture into the water alone because the draw is so powerful. My point here is that there is no inherent benchmark for "acceptable risk"...it's something people have to figure out for themselves. Like I said in a previous post: all one can do is provide a particular individual with information and allow that individual to make the decision for themselves...even if it's not one you agree with.
And all of that represents a logical fallacy ... one cannot determine "acceptable risk" without some understanding of what the risks might be.
By all means I am in favor of people making their own decisions. I would prefer if they made those decisions based on knowledge, rather than on wishful thinking ...
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
