Why ‘everyone is responsible for their own risk-based decisions’ isn’t the right approach to take

[sigxbill]

?????

Hmm, your ideals seem to be much closer to those of Peter Kropotkin then you may believe ...

A person who lived a very interesting life, BTW.

I prefer to think my ideals are more along the lines of those of Friedrich Hayek ...

Thanks for piquing my interest in Peter Kropotkin - it was interesting reading

cheers

 

[chrisch]

I couldn't disagree more! Very few professions should require occupational licensing from the government. Regulation of anything, including scuba instructors, is usually nothing more than a power and money grab! Some people value their lives more than others, and freedom allows customers to research and buy cars based on (among other things) safety vs price. Some people choose Volvo, and others choose Fiat. Why should scuba training be any different?...

it isn't - both Fiat and Volvo are manufacturers of highly regulated products that have to comply with a basic level of protection to the people that use them. Both manufacturers comply with very high amounts of environmental protection and mandatory fuel requirements and design requirements for potential impact with pedestrians.

In fact, I doubt it is possible to find many consumer product more highly regulated than an automobile. This regulation is worldwide and agree to by the governments, regulators and consumers of all the world.

If you are arguing that scuba training should meet similar exacting and global safety standards, should take into account environmental and third party issues then fair enough we are in agreement but at cross purposes.

I am sure you are not, but if one reads your post without a great deal of care, you appear to be saying that instructors who drown the odd student here and there would soon go out of business due to bad reputation. Those that churn out instabuddy style idiots that blindly follow a DM and cannot clear a mask would somehow find they have to up their game due to super savvy consumers who all read the excellent advice one can find here on Scubaboard.

Whilst I have great sympathy with your views and share your dislike of government interference in my life (even though there is little of it to be fair) I think you have failed to understand the real world. The role of government is to govern. Regulatory frameworks are there to protect those who need protection. We should welcome this and recognise it is a valuable service, it is not the oppression of Stalin or Mao any more than it is the lunacy of Trump. It is the core job. Are there many examples of it being done badly? Yes, of course. Are some government employees over zealous? Yes, undoubtedly. Are some laws badly drafted? Sure are. Are you going to tear down the whole building because you don't like one door? Or do you constantly improve and review?

I expect my Fiat or my Volvo to be safe. I don't expect it to kill me as a wheel falls off on the Interstate.

I expect my instructor to look after me while I pay for my training.

Sorry if you don't like "rules" very much. Neither do I if I am honest. But we need them all the same.

 

[The Chairman]

Sorry if you don't like "rules" very much. Neither do I if I am honest. But we need them all the same.

Here's a rule I would like to see, except for Scuba:

This Florida statute provides that an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities.

Yes, there are exceptions, but it eliminates the grey area where people think something is safe when it has inherent risk.

 

[chrisch]

.. Yes, there are exceptions, but it eliminates the grey area where people think something is safe when it has inherent risk.

To be honest I can see a lot of grey area in that statement (I really should have been a lawyer )

What are the "inherent" risks in equine activity? Does this statement mean that if my horse tramples you to death as you walk in the park that it is your fault for getting in the way of the horse as horses do not respect the rights of pedestrians as an inherent aspect of simply being a horse?

(I see a great opportunity to rid oneself of the ex wife here)

As an aside I believe in some US states it is legal to marry a horse? Would an inherent risk of that be a particularly smelly bad tempered mother in law?

 

[The Chairman]

To be honest I can see a lot of grey area in that statement (I really should have been a lawyer )

You're missing the point, or I didn't make it plain enough. Every horse riding establishment has to have a sign essentially saying that you ride at your own risk.

​

Of course, this doesn't cover gross negligence, like if a boat leaves a diver out in open ocean, but it would go a long, long way in making sure the divers knows that THEY are the one's responsible for their safety.

Too many abdicate that responsibility and shouldn't.

 

[Resqdivemedic]

I found this summary of that Florida law which gives a little more detail:

This Florida statute provides that an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities. Liability will not be limited by statute, however, where the equine professional or sponsor knew the tack or equipment was faulty, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, owns or is otherwise in lawful possession of the land or facilities where the injury is attributable to a known dangerous latent condition, commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant, or intentionally injures the participant. Posting of warning signs alerting participants to the limitation of liability by law is also required.

I agree with the Chairman, something like this for scuba would really make people aware that they are responsible for their safety. As we are all aware, everyone is sue happy, trust me I know. Fortunately is was not a scuba related issue. Even though, it took a toll on me physically and mentally.

 

[chrisch]

...
Of course, this doesn't cover gross negligence, like if a boat leaves a diver out in open ocean, but it would go a long, long way in making sure the divers knows that THEY are the one's responsible for their safety.

Too many abdicate that responsibility and shouldn't.

Having undertaken IANTD training I have signed the declaration which shows you are responsible for your own safety. I doubt the sign has much legal standing if I am honest. The IANTD declaration doesn't. I am not conversant with US law but UK law is clear. Under UK law it is not possible to absolve the responsibility for personal injury by notice.

So if there is a sign saying "Use this parking lot at your own risk" the lot owner is attempting to remove their duty of care. As it stands this can be used as a defence against a fender bender where the lot owner is not responsible. However if you trip over an obstacle you can still sue the lot owner, the notice has no legal standing as it is a personal injury.

In respect of the IANTD contract it is not (under UK law) possible to sign away your right to sue for negligence. This is covered by a number of acts of parliament and the Unfair Contract Terms Act which covers contracts between consenting parties.

Many people who have not studied law are unaware of these facets of negligence and so we have ambulance chasers here like you do in the US. These parasites twist and turn the intention of the law to it's very limit in order to extract money from the insurance companies (who are complicit as you can insure against losing the case....)

I do agree at the top level that many people seek to find someone to blame for their mistakes as opposed to taking responsibility for what is clearly their fault. Who can blame them (particularly in the US) where punitive damages are awarded? Removal of this feature would quickly stop the profitability of the practice. If it really is necessary to "punish" through the damages system then the punitive element should go to charity.

 

[The Chairman]

Many people who have not studied law

Did you read any of the previous posts? This IS Florida law. The sign is mandated by that law. The owner has to post that sign or face penalties, whether they want to or not. You can't fault the owner for following the law.

 

[Kharon]

What makes you think that the state will take over yet another area of our lives? You sound so certain - as though you know something the rest of us don't. The primary argument for requiring a drivers license is because you might hit / hurt someone else. Since scuba is an individual activity, the argument for requiring a license is not the same as driving a car. Should we start requiring drivers licenses to drive a bicycle? What makes you so sure the state will require licenses to dive?

NYS, a few years ago, changed the law to require a PFD to be WORN in any canoe or kayak year round and on any boat less than 21 feet from November 1st through May 1st. Children must WEAR a type I, II, or III PFD (no type IV or V) on any vessel less than 65 feet. They also want to pass a law that makes it unlawful to drive a vehicle with any accumulation of snow or ice on it.

State legislaters have way too much time on their hands but not enough to think of unintended consequences or do anything actually usefull. Can I see them effing around with scuba. You bet.

 

[chrisch]

Did you read any of the previous posts? This IS Florida law. The sign is mandated by that law. The owner has to post that sign or face penalties, whether they want to or not. You can't fault the owner for following the law.

I did read the previous post and the other one by Resqdivemedic that clarified the law. It is not black and white at all - there are limits on it and massive caveats that do not mean the responsibility is clear at all. The sign is meaningless as it is not the full law but an indication of a law which doesn't actually correspond to the notice if taken literally. As in the UK the sign is just there to cover the ass of the person that put the sign up but when the lawyers get involved you will need some kind of reinforced ass plate as the sign just will not cut it.

The problem is not the principle that personal responsibility is a good thing - I feel we all agree on that - the problem is where your duty of care to others takes over from the third party's personal responsibility. You do not board an airplane expecting the pilot to have no qualifications, it is not your responsibility to check the pilot, their qualifications, their air log or to breathalyse them. The airline has a duty of care to ensure that is done on your behalf. When you rent a dive boat you do not first inspect the insurance and captain's licence, you don't get a marine survey report undertaken to check seaworthyness of the vessel.

At some point all of us make an assumption about the skill, the competence and the suitability of a person to whom we trust our life. The role of regulation is to validate that assumption. This in no way absolves you of the personal responsibility to behave in a suitable manner. Drunks get thrown off airplanes.