Legal & other issues from SG Mishap

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Why would Key Largo give up one of it's biggest tourist attractions, because of a small percentage of incidents?

It's an advanced dive, that lots of beginners go out on and dive. When you sign up, you're risking YOUR life - PERIOD.

If you're not good enough to make the dive; it's YOUR responsibility to not go.

All of the divers lost on this wreck may have been "good enough" or better, for all we know. I am simply asking a hypothetical question, how many qualified divers must be lost on a wreck before it is closed to the public. The fact that it is a lucrative tourist attraction means nothing... imagine if Disney kept a ride open that killed a dozen people a year by arguing "it's our biggest money maker." In medicine we have informed consent...do operators have a responsibility to tell consumers the death rate at a dive site? What if the incidents in question were hammerhead shark attacks, occuring four or five times a year with fatalities...if a diver goes out and gets attacked, without knowing this history, is he right to be upset that the site is still open for diving despite repeated attacks? I am not suggesting that the Spiegel should be closed, there is no data suggesting it is dangerous. I'm merely asking: does anyone pay attention to such data...or is ignorance bliss?

Dive sites are public amusements accessed by for-profit companies. Simply saying "dive at your own risk" doesn't seem to cover it.

 

[Missdirected]

weren't there a few deaths/serious injuries there last year? at what point do we not question the divers or the operators and start questioning the safety of the site itself for rec diving? Does anyone know of a dive site that has been declared "off limits" because of a high accident rate and who has the authority to do this>

Yes there has been many a death out there. Not sure how to answer your second question though. Many people have advanced cards yet aren't quite advanced divers, yet. One can not ruin the fun of the many because of the lack of skill/safety/thought of the few. As for declaring dive sites "off limits"; wrecks as we know change over time. One that may have at one time been on the "easier side" due to corrosion or whatever may now be considered advanced wreck. Do you see where I am going?

That said, we do not know the experience of the divers for which this thread was started. I am just addressing questions that inevitably come up when incidents such as this arise.

 

[HowardE]

Dive sites are public amusements accessed by for-profit companies. Simply saying "dive at your own risk" doesn't seem to cover it.

The Spiegel Grove was put there BY the dive operators, and the people of Key Largo.

"dive at your own risk" ALWAYS applies... or - DON'T DIVE.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

The Spiegel Grove was put there BY the dive operators, and the people of Key Largo.

"dive at your own risk" ALWAYS applies... or - DON'T DIVE.

Perhaps, but this assumes you know the risk. Who put it there isn't the issue...if it is deemed unsafe, either the lawyers or the government will shut it down. The fact that I set up a bakcyard swingset doesn't shield me from liability if it is unsafe.

The issue isn't worth arguing over... there is no evidence that this particular site is any more dangerous than others and the answer, as we both would agree, lies in better screening and education of those who use the sites, not in restricting access to them.

 

[HowardE]

Perhaps, but this assumes you know the risk.

You'd better know the risks, and you'd better READ the waiver of liability that the dive op makes you sign. Otherwise, you have no business being there. (unless you're on your own boat - but you'd still better know the risks involved.)

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

You'd better know the risks, and you'd better READ the waiver of liability that the dive op makes you sign. Otherwise, you have no business being there. (unless you're on your own boat - but you'd still better know the risks involved.)

Do the waivers say "by the way, six people have died on this wreck in the last year" or whatever the number is? It's easy to say "know the risks" but this presumes that the risks are knowable...example; when I was jetskiing in a resort near Sanibel island, I saw some dorsal fins that look suspicious. I asked the operator how many shark attacks occurred in that area and he winked "none that you'll find out about" implying that the true incidence is kept as quiet as possible.

If a dive site is dangerous, where do I look up that info to "know the risks"...especially if it accidents aren't tabulated?

Two years ago, in Aruba, we dove the Pedernalis and were told by the DM that the site was no longer safe to penetrate anywhere because of shifting... a year ago, on the same site, nothing was said and people were allowed to do what they pleased. Did an unsafe wreck become safe again, or were we misinformed somewhere? I agree, know the risks, but the risks should be stated, when known, not just covered by some blanket waiver.

 

[dave4868]

See Scuba-do's release form at
http://www.scuba-do.com/forms/divingrelease.pdf

It says a lot... See #7

7. [FONT=Verdana,Verdana]I acknowledge that Scuba-Do, Inc. is providing transportation only from their dock to the location for me to pursue my underwater activities and that the captain and divemaster or other agents or assigns while assisting on board the vessel are not providing instruction, protection from perils of swimming and diving/snorkeling and are not responsible for my safety while in the water.
[/FONT]

Glenn, thank you for posting this.

I'm always happy to sign releases like this; individual responsibility means freedom.

Let's hope the nanny state doesn't get any further into scuba diving.

Dave C

 

[Flightlead]

All of the divers lost on this wreck may have been "good enough" or better, for all we know. I am simply asking a hypothetical question, how many qualified divers must be lost on a wreck before it is closed to the public. The fact that it is a lucrative tourist attraction means nothing... imagine if Disney kept a ride open that killed a dozen people a year by arguing "it's our biggest money maker." In medicine we have informed consent...do operators have a responsibility to tell consumers the death rate at a dive site? What if the incidents in question were hammerhead shark attacks, occuring four or five times a year with fatalities...if a diver goes out and gets attacked, without knowing this history, is he right to be upset that the site is still open for diving despite repeated attacks? I am not suggesting that the Spiegel should be closed, there is no data suggesting it is dangerous. I'm merely asking: does anyone pay attention to such data...or is ignorance bliss?

Dive sites are public amusements accessed by for-profit companies. Simply saying "dive at your own risk" doesn't seem to cover it.

shakey,

I for one do NOT want the government to be my mommy. I suspect that is the mind of the majority of people on this board too. There is way too MUCH restriction in the name of safety in my mind. What's next? A guard rail around the grand canyon? If people are too daft to do the research and make up their own mind, or they do the research and decide with all the information at hand that the risk is worth whatever putatative gains there are, then I for one fully support their (and my own) rights to kill them selves in the act. I believe it is every mans inalienable right to determine what risks they personally feel they can bear, and necessarily to assume the costs of those risks being realized.

 

[HowardE]

Do the waivers say "by the way, six people have died on this wreck in the last year" or whatever the number is? It's easy to say "know the risks" but this presumes that the risks are knowable...example; when I was jetskiing in a resort near Sanibel island, I saw some dorsal fins that look suspicious. I asked the operator how many shark attacks occurred in that area and he winked "none that you'll find out about" implying that the true incidence is kept as quiet as possible.

Why should the waivers have to say anything other than liability of that particular dive? This isn't a ride at Disney Land... it's an advanced dive. There ARE inherent risks - no? (It's also not a trip on a jet ski)

If a dive site is dangerous, where do I look up that info to "know the risks"...especially if it accidents aren't tabulated?

If you are uneducated as to the history of the wreck, and the track record of the divers, then shame on you for not doing your research. These figures are available to the public. You just need to ask, or search the internet. (or ScubaBoard)

Two years ago, in Aruba, we dove the Pedernalis and were told by the DM that the site was no longer safe to penetrate anywhere because of shifting... a year ago, on the same site, nothing was said and people were allowed to do what they pleased. Did an unsafe wreck become safe again, or were we misinformed somewhere? I agree, know the risks, but the risks should be stated, when known, not just covered by some blanket waiver.

Most all of the dive ops tell you, "DO NOT PENETRATE THIS WRECK" - what else can they do? Have people go and baby sit - certified divers on a dive?!?! - I certainly don't want a sitter on a dive with me.

It sounds to me like you are trying to argue that the Spiegel Grove is not a safe wreck... but take the total number of divers that dive it annually, and come up with an % chance of incident, and I'd bet it's a heck of a lot lower than many other wrecks.

The Grove is a great dive - and it's not the hardest dive, nor is it a dangerous dive by nature (more so than any other advanced wreck dive). It just deserves the respect that it often doesn't get, and then people can get hurt.

The bottom line is - KNOW the dive site (any time you dive) - be responsible for yourself - everytime you dive.

 

[Spratman]

I was not faulting the dive op. My question had more to do with the clientele. Is it primarily a rec or tech outfit?

These guys were from my neck of the woods...damn!

It doesn't matter who the dive op was. It's just a boat ride, the rest is up to the divers.

Terry